Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 17

message: The following articles related to Jewish biblical interpretation appear to be missing or severely incomplete.  Can anyone help me find more complete articles?
* Sadia Gaon
** -> Saadia Gaon Jheald 14:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, there certainly are big gaps. Not sure what you've seen. For instance, there's Pardes (Jewish exegesis) and Rabbinical literature (aka Jewish Biblical exegesis). Hopefully, some better nuggets out there. Otherwise, happy gap-filling (so to speak). HG | Talk 23:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing and stub articles - Help, please? 

message: I've spent some time this morning expanding the discussion of WP:NPOV and articles involving biblical text in our project's manual of style.  I've tried to take into account multiple interpretative traditions, but I think it would be a good thing if many voices from many streams of Judaism are involved in this expansion.  Egfrank 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - what part of above? - there's lots there! Egfrank 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi again, the parts above about "Varieties of Hebrew and Yiddish" because the language issues and differences are also based upon serious divides in the premises and the Weltanschaungs (I am afraid of the words "points of view" but they do apply) of all editors who invarioubly come at things from multiple positions. It is best not to try too hard to squeeze everything and everyone into a "generic Hebrew" or "generic Judaism" on Wikipedia for the simple reason that no such thing exists in the real world, and such efforts are bound to fail as much as the efforts to introduce "Esperanto" as a "world language" fails to reflect the realities of the inherent differences to be found in the human condition.IZAK 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: I just happened to notice a bot which dewikified Midreshet lindenbaum because it had been speedily deleted.  Isn't this a rather important study center for women? It is pretty well known in Israel among the women's yeshivot and has a number of references across Wikipedia.  Anybody know anything about this delete? Egfrank 08:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I undeleted it. This was probably a mistake; the administrator who deleted it was correct in noting that the article that existed at the time of deletion neither asserted notability nor provided sources and hence was elegible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A7. However, it appears that if people are willing to improve the article things will be left here. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midreshet lindenbaum speedily deleted? 

message: Since the Nephilim article falls under this project, I thought I might bring this to your attention. A new user recently started adding original research to the article:
From the main article (which I deleted)
A snippet from the talk page (which I deleted because of it's forum-like quality)
User: Rick S33555, who posted the info, claims this picture is scientific proof of an Elohim head on the moon (this is apparently a creature separate from the name of God). He also claims that there was a war between the Elohim and the Anunnaki with missiles! (see this edit) He further claims all of this info is backed up by scholarly papers written by people with PhD's, but never provides citations. Will somebody from here please join in on the discussion? --Ghostexorcist 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft him for Uncyclopedia. This sounds like a good satire piece. If there actually exists such a book we can leave it in the popular culture section but not in the main.Wolf2191 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird original research on [[Nephilim]] 

message: :See related subject Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - for handling differences between American and British English, and other national varieties. 
Hi Jheald: Your concerns do not have an "absolute" conclusion, because the issue you raise goes back to what "brand" of Hebrew pronounciation should be used in articles with Hebrew titles or names in them. There are users who would perfer only "pure" English names (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and not Avraham Yitzchak Yaakov [with variations, such as Abram, Izaak, Jakob Avrohom, Yitschok, Yaacov]) and then there is the debate between those who want to use current English versus scholarly English (Hasidism vs. hasidism) and they vs. those who use words based on modern Israeli Hebrew (Beth din vs. Bet or Beit din) or the debate between Sefardi usage vs Ashkenazi usage and the Ashkenazi usage is further split when editors insist on writing the name of Jewish subjects "as they call themselves" such as "Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov, Moishe, Aharon, [Aaron or Aron], Yoel", and so on. The core debate is unresolved and seems will remain so, see the old discussions about Hebrew usage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) (with its three archives of discussion about the very issues you raise: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 1; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 2; Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew)/Archive 3. I guess at the end of the day, because Wikipedia editors come from so may reliable backgrounds with authentic traditions then all must be given credence and ultimately there should be a context for any usage, so that it would not make sense to apply Hasidic usage to modern Israeli Hebrew or to force archaic scholarly Hebrew on Sefardic usage, or to use Israeli Hebrew transliterations for Haredi Judaism topics where the editors and authors have generally followed one convention (presumably the one they were taught in established schools). This also takes us back to Wikipedia's generally accepted rule/s about English usage that both American English and British English usage are legitimate and should not be corrected or modified in articles when one style has been more or less applied, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English:
"The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language; none is more correct than the others, and users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines.
;Consistency within articles
Each article consistently uses the same conventions of spelling and grammar (e.g., British, Canadian); for example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are:
* quotations (the original variety is retained);
* titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); and 
* explicit comparisons of varieties of English.
;Strong national ties to a topic
An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:
* American Civil War—(American English)
* Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings—(British English)
* Australian Defence Force—(Australian English)
* European Union institutions—(British English)
* Montreal—(Canadian English)
;Retaining the existing variety
If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.
;Opportunities for commonality
Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.
* In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English]).
* If a variable spelling appears in an article name, redirect pages are made to accommodate the other variants, as with Artefact and Artifact, so that they can always be found in searches and linked to from either spelling.
* Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternate terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia.
:Articles such as English plural and American and British English differences provide information on the differences between the major varieties of the language."
Thank you, IZAK 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Varieties of Hebrew

message: The same problems relating to finding a "standardized form" of Hebrew/Yiddish can be found enumerated and discussed at Yiddish dialects as it impacts on the above discussions. Thank you, IZAK 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Varieties of Yiddish dialects

message: :Thank you, IZAK for explaining the complexity of the problem. The situation gets even worse if one adds in multiple systems of transliteration for sephardic pronounciation and traditional academic transliterations (e.g. the german preference for J as a transliteration for yod).  However, it still doesn't answer my question because we can't possibly put in redirects for all these possible variants. 
:The current situation leaves someone guessing at which of the 20 or so spellings is actually being used and makes wikifying a Jewish article very time consuming. I'm wondering if we can pick one (or two) transliteration standards and just make sure that those always lead to an article?  Or if we have one, make the link to it more prominent.  I don't think it matters if the standard names are merely redirects or the main article.  I think the issue is having a consistent rule for guessing what will be a valid link. 
One proposal:
* follow let the creator decide for the main title (as done for English, Yiddish)
* document a selected transliteration scheme in the manual of style
* make sure every topic has either a main title or redirect using one of the standard transliteration schemes for modern Israeli pronounciation so that there is a consistent way to guess at a working link request that any article that is named using a different scheme be given a redirect with the standardized transliteration.
Egfrank 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical implications 

message: I think this article is realy strange. Probably you should ask you if it's not a hoax, please take a loock on this link.--Kimdime69 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Very poor Afd. Blogs are not reliable sources and certainly not as counter sources either. --Shuki 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it was a source, just a way to awake skepticism.--Kimdime69 03:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abir (martial art)]] 

message: There are currently several articles including the above, Jewish denominations, Schisms among the Jews, and criticism sections in each denominational article that address theological differences and organizational antagonisms in a somewhat scattered and overlapping way. Given this, I have come ot agree with others who have suggested that perhaps this material might better be consolidated into one article with only brief summaries or links in the others. Best,--Shirahadasha 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favour of a merge. Most of them are POV vehicles of contributors who have long departed from Wikipedia (e.g. the famous RK). I think this can all be captured in one article, and I hereby nominate Shirahadasha to merge them all. Heh. JFW | T@lk 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, it sounds like a useful idea. However, there's a real risk that this would simply be a magnet for every editors' impressions about current movement relationships. Instead, it should be grounded on terminology -- started with an article title -- and analysis drawn from high quality sources, preferably with a structure from academic studies of the movements. My guess is that we would end up with one main article about Orthodoxy's relations with the non-Orthodox (aka "liberal") movements, and then remaining content within each movement (e.g., Conservative re: Reconstructionist, etc.). The main article might begin with the dual emergence of Orthodoxy and Reform in the late 18th Century, a big piece on 19th C Europe, and then sections such as what you all want on the subsequent American scene. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On reflection, I believe it would be useful to distinguish discussion of differences in ideas -- that, each side's intellectual POV about the other -- from discussion of behavior. The first topic is a topic in Judaism; the second, a topic in Jewish history. Integrating the two as the only presentation would create a result that might be a little bit like integrating discussion of the history of Richard Dawkins's social snafus with discussion of his ideas on the evolution or the atheism articles. Whether one thinks Richard Dawkins a nice person or not isn't necessarily relevant to whether his ideas are worth consideration; combining the two could be considered a original research synthesis. Clearly, atheists' intellectual critique of theism and vice versa is not the same subject as the history of the relationship between theists and atheists. Same here. Best. --Shirahadasha 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many contemporary representations of Orthodox perspectives that would serve as reliable sources. It seems to me that we are, ultimately, reporting opinions.  Best, --Shirahadasha 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, you're sounding a bit cynical here. Besides Meyer, there's of course Jacob Katz and many others in various disciplines (Feiner, Ferziger, Ellenson, Bacon, Heilman, etc etc). I think they cover both arenas (history of relationship, intellectual/religious critique) without relying on WP editors to give their opinions of the primary sources. Cheer up! HG | Talk 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Relationships between Jewish religious movements]] 

message: The scholar and gentleman Steven Goldberg of New York was generous enough to reply to an email I sent and to provide me with a portrait to put up at Wiki. Unfortunately, I didn't think to get him to sign a Gnu License in triplicate, witnessed by a JP, and delivered by registered mail, so naturally the image was removed for fear of breaking copyright.
I'm a little shy of troubling Professor Goldberg again. But I was just wondering if a long shot might work. Perhaps someone in this project has some family or social contact with the good Professor. Please drop a note at my user page if you can help. If I don't hear from anyone in a few weeks I'll shoot off the email anyway. Shalom. Alastair Haines 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need it to be witness in triplicate (I assume that was a joke).  Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.  The main thing is to make sure that he understand what an open license means and that he owns the copyright (the person who took the picture - not the person who the picture is of - owns the copyright).  He must understand that not only can wikipedia use it, but anyone can use it for any reason also, even sell it and even modify it.  Simple forward your letters (both the request and the answer - preferable together) to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" where it is archived.  If your question and answer are already clear ( he know that permission means that 1. Modification,  2. Redistribution, 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes) and he says he owns the copyright you can simple forward the emails to wikipedia now.  Otherwise you have to email him again.  If you need help on how to phrase it read Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.  Jon513 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe someone can help 

message: We already have a Rabbi article and a Rebbe article, and even a Tzadik article, but do we need a Rav article that is really a linguistic duplication of everything that could fit into the main Rabbi article. What are your views? Discussion at Talk:Rav#Rav means Rabbi in Hebrew. Thank you, IZAK 10:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a "Rav" article as well as a "Rabbi" article? 

message: #The newly created Jews and Judaism in Thailand could use work.  I should know—I created it.
#Jews of San Nicandro has a lot of commented out text (mostly stuff I dumped in there in case the articles I was reading should be deleted before their information could be incorporated into the text)...but also the Hebrew WP article on this community contains images and information that should be incorporated into the English WP article.  
(Just in case anyone's looking for something to do... Tomertalk 10:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles in need of expertise 

message: A proposal has been made on Talk:Bible to split the current Bible article into two separate articles, Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible, with Bible becoming a redirect to Bible (disambiguation). Best, --Shirahadasha 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bible]] 

message: Please see the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein where the question of deleting the biographies of rabbis is being raised. Thank you, IZAK 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for deleting rabbis 

message: I seem to be sparring pretty one-on-one with an anonymous editor over whether the Jewish Messianism article ought, on the point "Jews will [in the Messianic Age] know the Torah without study" include a reference and link to the New Covenant.  Some other editors weighing in to help achieve a consensus would be appreciated. Savant1984 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Messianism:New Covenant 

message: Input is needed on the article Dalit Voice. Users whitewashing the antisemitic website want to remove the cat :Category:Antisemitic publications from the article. Specifically, conflict exists between this version  and this version.  A glance at the talk page shows a propensity of the article to attract fanatics, so extra pairs of eyes would serve the article well. Yitzhak Hudas 11:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are the ones that the above user is talking about. I believe that this user is a sockpuppet of the prolific sockpuppeteer User:Hkelkar. I take strong exception to the accusation of "whitewashing", which has no place in Wikipedia. I first came across this article through participation in the Wikification WikiProject. I'm no expert on Indian politics but it's clear that the publication it deals with is associated with some extreme-minority points of view, some of which are to my reading antisemitic. That's only my reading though, and the article needs to follow WP policies and just describe the views of the publication in neutral terms, quoting only reliable sources. It would indeed be very good to get more editors involved, which is why I just tagged it for an expert in Indian politics. Since there is also a dimension of antisemitism, I'm going to leave a message on the Antisemitism talk page too. I'm losing patience in edit-warring over the article and certainly have no wish to WP:Own it. Itsmejudith 11:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and of course I am emphatically NOT involved with whitewashing the page on antisemitism. Itsmejudith 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the state I looked at it the article provides sufficient documentation that the publication is an anti-semitic one to justify the category. However, as long as things stay this way in the meanwhile, I don't see a problem with giving things a few days to see if an expert can be found to review the whole article. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn required in article on antisemitic website 

message: I'm by no means an expert, so I may be missing some nuance of definition or application, but is there any good reason to include in the various  categories people with non-Jewish mothers who don't identify as Jewish?  (Much less having any notability in regard to Jewish identity or Judaism, or being a professing Jew, or anything that'd otherwise make it into the article, but-of-course.)  It appears to me that such people are not, by self-definition, by Liberal/Reform definition, and by Orthodox definition, which happen to agree, in such cases -- how to categorise people for whom those criteria disagree, I'll leave for another day's work.  There's some especially enthusiastic such tagging (and re-tagging...) going on at Natasha Kaplinsky and Sharon Osbourne, I can't help but notice.  If someone would have a look, I'd be obliged.  Alai 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of {{cl|English Jews}} 

message: The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish history of Wales & N. Ireland needed 

message: The article Siyum HaShas had been expanded, and was selected for an imminent Did You Know... feature on the Wikipedia front page. Alansohn 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did You Know... Siyum HaShas 

message: There's an anon who's been editing Bans on ritual slaughter recently, and is trying to get more material about Jewish law into the article.  The problem is that the anon doesn't understand Wikipedia, doesn't understand the formatting system, hasn't been able to figure out how to register a Wikipedia account, and doesn't write well.  He'll make a dozen edits in a row and leave the article in a mess.  Then someone adds a "cleanup" tag, then he gets reverted, and then he complains he's being mistreated.  He even complains he's being censored by the anti-vandal bots; some of his edits were so turgid they were reverted by a bot. ("You retain erronous information, refuse edits from professionals in the field, and accuse people of being vandals based on automatic computer programs. Sort of a model for a nightmare totalitarian state.")  I can barely figure out what he's trying to say.  He seems to be wound up about some event in Bavaria around 1900 or so.  If someone could give him some guidance, or get him hooked up with an appropriate Wikipedia project, he might become more productive, or more readable, or at least less annoying.  See Talk:Bans on ritual slaughter for details. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digging into legislative histories to make claims about why legislation was enacted would seem likely to be original research. --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! The article seems to be riddled with information sourced form partisan websites of advocacy groups. The article listed "United States" in their "active bans" list and that content seemed to consist of an WP:ESSAY indicating why it should be banned in the United States. I believe the entire article requires re-writing. I expect there is a substantial amount of reliably sourced information opposing ritual slaughter, but the article seemed like a demonstration of WP:NOT#SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bans on ritual slaughter]] edits by anon 

message: Please help!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.193.233.66 (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Who is a Jew?#Khazars]] 

message: Not much (anything) written about this in Torah reading or Parsha, although it is apparently a mainstay of Conservative Judaism.  Anyone else think it should have its own article including the origin/history and modern usage?  Should it just be added into the existing articles? Kaisershatner 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Triennial Torah reading I have heard is still pretty common in Sephardi communities.  Tomertalk 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this JE article.  Tomertalk 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Kaisershatner for taking this on.  Tomertalk 05:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triennial Torah reading 

message: Help would be appreciated.  Tomertalk 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackjob underway at [[Bnei Menashe]] 

message: What is the difference between :Category:Medieval rabbis & :Category:Rishonim? Both pages have a link at the top which goes to the same page. Surely these should be merged? Chesdovi 11:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category merge? 

message: I am disturbed by the recent comments made by the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko‎. Chesdovi 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Lukashenko‎ 

message: I feel that Tefillin has now reached a point where it can be promoted from B class to GA class. I have added the GA nom tag to the talk page. Yossiea (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tefillin 

message: In a sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), the Ashkenazi intelligence article was not listed as part of an original group in the AfD until a later user mentioned the article and then the nominator decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are still coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what the serious tinkering additions by the nominator were all about, or if he was even right to do so. Futhermore, being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. For the sake of clarity the Ashkenazi intelligence should be removed from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which it was included. The Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If anyone wishs to have a new nomination, they can go ahead, but it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Your input and intervention is requested. Thank you, IZAK 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relisting [[Ashkenazi intelligence]] as a separate vote 

message: See:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Simon
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam H. Toubin
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Levin (Businessman)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon family
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Simon (Businessman)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Cohen Community House
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Kessler
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosa Levin Toubin
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Theatre
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda
Hi Izak.  My intention in nominating those articles for deletion was not to pick a fight or to delete valuable information.  Someone posted notices questioning the notablity of these articles on the WikiProject Texas page so I took a look at them.  I am a member of WikiProject Biography too, and I'm a big proponent of WP:Verify and reliable sources, and meeting WP:Notability.  I honestly don't see how you can argue that the articles in question meet any of those guidelines.  Most of the sources cited are geocities or earthlink user webpages, which are not considered reliable, and those valid sources (articles, Handbook of Texas), barely mention the subjects.  If you really think that the sources are reliable, then make those arguments at the AFDs rather than blanketly stating that they are okay.  Otherwise, if you can find reliable sources that discuss the importance of these people, then please incorporate them into the articles and see if you can convince others that the subjects are notable.  Being a member of a minority religion or being a locally successful businessman (or both) doesn't make one notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  Karanacs 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I understand that these individuals may well prove to have historical importance and serve as good topics for future history papers on Texas or Texas Jewish history. The difficulty is whether this type of research currently exists. Wikipedia isn't intended to be the first place to publish new historical research, so if there hasn't been any previous historical work discussing these individuals and assessing their historical significance, Wikipedia may not be the place to publish their biographies. If some of them have already been covered by previous research, you could help us all by pointing this out. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Another editor might have tagged these articles with Template:Notability and Template:Texas-stub, but the bottom line is that these don't appear to be notable subjects (with the exception of Temple Freda) and Karanacs was in the right to nominate them for deletion the way she did. Any editor who is concerned that valuable information about Texas Jewish history may be lost with the deletion of these articles would be wise to copy these articles to user subpages. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion Malik: I have filed all the articles pending a final outcome at Talk:History of the Brenham Jewish Community and Talk:History of the Galveston Jewish Community so that nothing will be lost no matter what the final verdict is. Thanks, IZAK 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion 

message: There are two articles that need to be reconciled: Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb that involve questions about whether it's in Iran or Iraq as well. Please help, IZAK 09:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomb of Daniel and Daniel's Tomb 

message: I just looked at the Tikkun Olam article.  It is so sad.  It is just a little stub of a thing.  It ought to be overflowing and pushing the limits of WP:LENGTH.  Tikkun Olam is hardly a small topic for Jews - in fact, I think some would argue that the Jewish commitment to tikkun olam is the Jewish shining star.  So I'd like to make a pitch, that this week we all go out and learn at least one itty bitty notable thing that can beef up this article.  Kol tuv, Egfrank 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tikkun Olam 

message: Could someone please read this article to see if the way Jewish ghettos are described is sensible? I noticed some comments on the talk page about describing Jewish neighborhoods as "ghettos" in the wrong context being potentially incorrect and offensive. I'm trying to make improvements myself, but I could use some help. futurebird 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ghetto]] 

message: In case anyone is even vaguely interested or even remotely knowledgeable about the subject, I have gotten myself entangled in a discussion at Talk:Bukharan Jews#.22Bukharan.22 vs .22Bukharian.22 over the correct English ethnonym.  This is the culmination of a slow and subtle edit war that places POV over RS, and has been ongoing for approximately 2 years.  Input from some cooler heads would be very welcome (at least by me).  Tomertalk 05:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user LeeMulod333 has moved the page to Bukharian Jewish, a terrible title, in an attempt to subvert the page move without going to WP:RM. Would someone with that awesome power please revert this? The talk page was left at Talk:Bukharians in an intermediate move. --Eliyak T·C 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want the guy to get into too much trouble, but he really is beginning to try my patience.  He's already accused me of being the cause of antisemitism, and doesn't seem to understand fundamental principles about naming conventions and original research.  I don't want to hold him down and flog him, but at the same time, his activities are becoming quite disruptive...he's inserting patent falsehood into the article and deleting whatever he disagrees with as he goes.  He has finally brought forth a couple of citations, which is good, but he whimsically removes other s whereëver it pleases him to do so.  I brought this up here because I'd rather not have to file a formal RfC, but he's quickly headed down that road.  It would be nice if some other editors could attempt to reason with him.  Tomertalk 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the problems he created as best I could without violating GFDL.  He is still intently pushing his "Bukharan is wrong!!!" POV.  I have no desire to come even close to violating 3RR, but it is very trying to counter his blatant POV-pushing w/o doing so.  I am generally a very calm and easy-going person, preferring to consider myself very even-keeled, but this fracas is coming close to driving me over the edge.  He doesn't bother to try to address anything I say on the talkpage, preferring instead to try to override whatever I've said by a blatant appeal to emotion concerning how I'm "disrespecting him" and "disrespecting Bukhar[i!]an Jews" with everything I say.  He admits on his userpage that he's 16 (which is 2 years older than I'd actually pegged him at...I don't know whether that's a good thing or not), which puts me in a real quandary.  I don't want to stifle him, but at the same time what he's doing is completely contrary to practically every principle that holds Wikipedia together.  If anyone knows any of his relatives or community leaders, it might be good to appeal to them to try to talk some sense into him.  That's about all I'm left with.  If this continues much longer, I might be driven to try to do so myself.  Tomertalk 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bukharan Jews" vs. "Bukharian Jews" 

message: This admin candidate has a Nazi emblem on his user page.  Any thoughts  about his fitness for adminship?  I'm not Jewish and I thought it was very ill judged, he considers it a joke ('I copied this box from another user's example, because I thought it was funny') and hasn't seen fit to remove it despite several complaints in his RFA. Perhaps he's right and I'm completely off base here, or perhaps not. Nick mallory 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:The Haunted Angel]] request for adminship 

message: Hi, I wrote this french article witch is now a featured article, I thing it should be good to translate it in english and more generaly all articles about the jewish diaspora should be improved. Only History of the Jews in Poland is a featured article. As you maybe know the english wikipedia is the key one, there is little chance that over wikipedias will improve this type of articles if you don't do it.--Kimdime69 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied the Google translation of the French version to User:Eliyak/History of the Jews of Thessaloniki. Anyone can feel free to edit it there, after which it can be moved to History of the Jews of Thessaloniki. --Eliyak T·C 08:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:fr:Histoire des Juifs à Salonique|History of the Jews in Salonika]] 

message: As an article on a field of academic study, the article impeccably meets Wikipedia requirements as the field is not covered by any other article. The difficulty comes when it comes time to discuss substantive topics. Perhaps we can avoid a content fork situation, with parallel articles covering subject matter from completely different points of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should admit that I wrote the initial draft(s) and put in maybe 3 WikiProject templates. I assumed that each project would be happy to be associated with the article. I don't believe this is a controversial thing in any way. Most discussions should be on the article Talk, anyway. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gender and Judaism]] 

message: I've put a note on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Gender Studies as well as other project pages that have claimed this article included this article in their scope.  I've also added a Judaism project template to the page - to give us a fighting chance of getting included in discussions started by other projects.  
I also wonder - given that there are four different projects laying claim to expressing an interest in this article - whether or not we should move this discussion to the article talk page itself. Another reason: to deal with this issue we will probably need to discuss matters and ideas that will affect the development of this article. Egfrank 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should admit that I wrote the initial draft(s) and put in maybe 3 WikiProject templates. I assumed that each project would be happy to be associated with the article. I don't believe this is a controversial thing in any way. Most discussions should be on the article Talk, anyway. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of venue 

message: Two problems:
#None of the "current Jewish populations" are cited except a general citation to here, which is, itself, at best, a secondary source.  If someone has access to the resources cited there, please verify the numbers and cite them in the article as appropriate.
#More troubling, on several levels, is the fact that the article currently mentions the pre/post populations of Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan--Muslim countries, certainly, but not Arab, and these countries' stats are not given with appropriate context.  Nor are other Muslim-majority countries' pre/post populations discussed, e.g., Albania, Azerbaijan and the CAsianReps.  Fully cognizant that the history of the Jewish populations in non-Arab countries is quite different from that of Arab countries, I have recommended on the talk page that these countries' Jewish depopulation be discussed separately, along with a discussion of the exodus of Jews from certain other countries post-statehood.  Some mention is made in the Beta Israel article, but it warrants barely a passing mention in the History of the Jews in India article, a country that has lost like 95% of its Jews to emigration post-statehood.  I have also proposed, without substantiation, that the reason why these Muslim-majority non-Arab countries are included is because of a poor choice in naming, not only of the article, but of the phenomenon itself, through a conflation of "Arab" and "Muslim".  If this is the case, then it may well be appropriate to keep the article with its current contents, and perhaps even with its current name, but clarification should be made in the article itself that the name is not a genuine reflection of the whole picture it purports to cover.  
Thoughts?  Tomertalk 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jewish exodus from Arab lands]] 

message: the article Aaron ben Meïr needs to be cleaned up.  Seems to me like a copy-paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia.  Jon513 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JE credit added.  Jheald 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup