Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 11

message: The following articles (many posted or edited by User:FeanorStar7 -- "Professional librarian at the Library of Congress," for latest contributions see ) need editorial help IZAK 16:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles needing editorial attention 

message: Someone has created an article called Messianic prophecies concerning the time of birth. In the opening paragraph, the conclusion is clearly stated: and that conclusion is that "Christ" is the OT Messiah who was prophesied. I'm going to tag this article as POV and in need of wikify, however, I was hoping that editors of this project could add some balance to the article (or maybe we should propose to delete it as a POV-fork?) Thanks!--Andrew c 18:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that most of those proffs Nahmanides in his dispute with Pablo Christiani in 1263.  It can be found in his collected writting. We could give Nahmanides responce to each statement. Nevertheless I think it would be better to move it to Christian views of Jesus and redirrect.  Jon513 21:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messianic prophecies concerning the time of birth 

message: Please take a look at this article, Adam (Hebrew bible). I have some concerns, but am not sure how to respond. Joaquin Murietta 21:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirect the article to Adam and Eve. It seems to have been copied from there in the first place and I don't see any reason to make it its own article. However the words are still in Adam and Eve#Narrative. Jon513 17:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam (Hebrew bible)]] 

message: The entire article needs work, but the section on the "Hebrew Bible" needs this project's attention. I tried to correct a few inaccuracies, but it still has major problems and is missing critical info. JoshuaZ 14:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics in the Bible 

message: Hey all, I just contested prod on this article. It needs a lot of work. Could people devote a few minutes this week to fixing it up before it's put up on AfD? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ropshitz]] 

message: I have written the basic outline of Jewish education. At the moment it focuses on its historical development and does not [yet] attempt to outline the present-day situation. Please add, comment and discuss. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section on informal education, with the aim of addressing the impact of youth groups on Jewish education today. It's still quite stubby though. Nomist 10:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish education 

message: There's been a proposal to merge Conservative_Judaism, which deals mostly with Conservative Judaism in the United States, with the Masorti article, which is about Masorti around the world. The proposal is to have one main article under Masorti, with smaller articles about Masorti and Conservative movements in specific countries. If you have an opinion on this, please comment at the relevant talk page. Thanks Nomist 21:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masorti/Conservative articles 

message: I have made a request for an article on yeshiva day schools. The topic is extremely notable and significant as a phenomenon of Jewish culture in the modern world. I was surprised that I could not find an article dedicated to the topic. I will try to begin it, but I am rather busy these days. Comments are welcome. -- DLandTALK 01:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see Jewish day school, Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, yeshiva and Beis Yaakov and :Category:Jewish day schools.  Perhaps a redirrect from yeshiva day school to Jewish day School is in order.  Jon513 11:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I should have thought of Jewish day school. Sorry for the bother. --DLandTALK 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeshiva day school 

message: 
 is self-promoting a particular format of tefilla as practiced by, no surprise, a minyan in J'lem called Shira Hadasha. While no doubt there will be plenty of people fascinated by this development, it is still quite a small-scale thing. Could some others have a look at Shira Hadasha and the innovatively titled Partnership Minyan, and see if they can be merged?
My personal view is that this amounts to revisionism for political reasons (feminism). I'm not personally aware of Orthodox critics of this development, but I doubt this has gone unnoticed in Israel's Haredi circles. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Shirahadasha contributions do not seem like those of a new editor, but of some who has experience with Wikipedia.  Perhaps there were edits as an anon, or under a different name.  I believe that an admin can look into things like that. Jon513 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Argh.  This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz).  In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006.  It was  along with  who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, , and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, .  My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat".  Tomertalk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For many women, exclusion from meaningful participation in the public service, including aliyyot to the Torah, is the starkest and most grating example of what they perceive as Orthodoxy’s insufficient sensitivity to their needs as spiritual beings. Rabbi Mendel Shapiro, arguing that innovation helps insure a system’s adaptability to new challenges while still balancing stability and flexibility, suggested that contemporary realities create many halakhic opportunities for women to be called up to the Torah and receive aliyyot. R. Shapiro is not the only one to have made this argument, but his article in an Orthodox journal sponsored by Edah has been identified most frequently and prominently as the supporting evidence for a small number of Orthodox congregations having adopted this practice, most notably Congregation Shira Hadasha in Jerusalem. Both for its inherent interest as an attempt to mine sources creatively and for its impact on the current Orthodox world, R. Shapiro’s analysis deserves serious consideration. 
--Shirahadasha 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-promotion 

message: Please see Talk:Creation_according_to_Genesis#Proposing_split. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: Please announce new articles to collaborate with other editors. This is similar to other portals. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Judaism/New article announcements]] 

message: Hello, gathered members of the tribe. I come here in search of more expertise than my own humble self can muster.
In the article Almond#Cultural_aspects it says
:Today, Jews still carry rods of almond blossom to the synagogues on great festival days. 
This doesn't ring a bell with me, but what do I know. Does anybody else recognize this practice?
Thanks Gzuckier 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tosafot (Bechorot 8a, s.v. "Tarn'golet") states that the almond branch represents the three weeks, though I don't know of anyone taking branches into a synagogue during that period. As far as I know, the only time it is customary to bring branches to the synagogues is obviously on Sukkot, where almond branches aren't included, and Shavuot, when almond branches are not particularly chosen. HKT 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I shall therefore delete the sentence. Gzuckier 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  expertise needed on the ritual almond branch 

message: This is a new article written by a new user, who claims that TTJ and their website (jewsagainstzionism.com) is "a completely independent group and with no affiliation to any other anti-Zionist group" and insists that they represent mainstream Judaism. See The Brutal Zionist Role in the Holocaust. The price of Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[True Torah Jews]] misrepresenting Judaism 

message: When someone gets the time, have a look at Kolel Chibas Yerushalayim.  It's a massive celebration of POV and OR, presented in some of the worst English I've ever seen on WP.  I tagged it for cleanup, and nibbled at the beginning of it, but it's gonna take someone a solid hour to fix it enough to take the cleanup tag off.  All I can say is "fe!"  Ugh.  Tomertalk 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  good lord, help please 

message: Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion because it is a poor copy of Template:Bibleverse. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref 

message: :Shalom to everyone: There is presently a very serious phenomenon on Wikipedia that effects all articles. Let's call it "The New Deletionism". There are editors on Wikipedia who want to cut back the number of "low quality" articles EVEN IF THEY ARE ABOUT NOTABLE TOPICS AND SUBJECTS by skipping the normal procedures of placing  or  tags on the articles' pages and instead wish to skip that process altogether and nominate the articles for a vote for deletion (VfD). This can be done by any editor, even one not familiar with the subject. The implication/s for all articles related to Jews, Judaism, and Israel are very serious because many of these articles are of a specilaized nature that may or may not be poorly written yet have important connections to the general subjects of Jews, Judaism, and Israel, as any expert in that subject would know. 
:Two recent examples will illustrate this problem:
::1) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zichron Kedoshim, Congregation where a notable Orthodox synagogue was deleted from Wikipedia. The nominator gave as his reason: "Scarce material available on Google, nor any evidence in those results of notability nor any notable size." Very few people voted and only one person objected correctly that: "I've visited this synagogue, know members, and know that it is a well established institution" which was ignored and the article was deleted. (I was unaware of the vote).
::2) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berel Wein where the nominator sought to delete the article about Rabbi Berel Wein because: "It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me." In the course of a strong debate the nominator defended his METHOD: "... what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a  and  template on and waiting for someone to perhaps come across it." But what if no-one noticed it in time and it would have gone the same way as "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim"? Fortunately, people noticed it, no-one agreed with the nominator and the article was kept. 
:As we all know Googling for/about a subject can determine its fate as an article, but this too is not always a clear-cut solution. Thus for example, in the first case, the nominator saw almost nothing about "Congregation Zichron Kedoshim" on Google (and assumed it was unimportant) whereas in the second case the nominator admitted that Berel Wein "does come up with many Google hits" but dismissed them as "all commercial in nature". So in one case too few Google hits was the rationale for wanting to delete it and in the other it was too many hits (which were dismissed as "too commercial" and interpreted as insignificant), all depending on the nominators' POV of course. 
:This problem is compounded because when nominators don't know Hebrew or know nothing about Judaism and its rituals then they are at a loss, they don't know variant transliterated spellings, and compounding the problem even more Google may not have any good material or sources on many subjects important to Jewish, Judaic, and Israeli subjects. Often Judaica stores may be cluttering up the search with their tactics to sell products or non-Jewish sites decide to link up to Biblical topics that appear "Jewish" but are actually missionary sites luring people into misinformation about the Torah and the Tanakh, so while Googling may yield lots of hits they may mostly be Christian-oriented and even be hostile to the Judaic perspective.
:Therefore, all editors and contributors are requested to be aware of any such attempts to delete articles that have a genuine connection to any aspect of Jews, Judaism and Israel, and to notify other editors. 
:Please, most importantly, place alerts here in particular so that other editors can be notified.
:Thank you for all your help and awareness. IZAK 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles have today been nominated particularly chasidic personalities. All were nominated by User:PZFUN with note "No references, speculative, and reads like an ad. Not notable for Wikipedia." Some of those may well be not sufficiently notable, but I woudln't know which- some are CLEARLY notable if the person nominating actually knew what they were reading. And justifying the notability of an 18th century personality with a Google search can in no way be sufficient. Please state your opinions there, but it may be worthwhile for the WikiProject to put together a set of criteria for notability of Jewish religious/community personalities, groups, literature, etc. jnothman talk 10:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've closed those nominations as speedy keep. I did it because I was concerned about the number that had been nominated, that some at least were clearly notable, and because of the dispute between PZFUN and IZAK, which made the nominations appear badly timed. However, not everyone is very happy about this, because some of the articles (perhaps all) do need to be cleaned up and, in particular, they need sources, so anyone who wants these to be kept should consider helping to do that; otherwise, they're likely to be nominated again. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion about it here. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Another article at risk: Spanish and Portuguese Jews along with the category :category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Clearly notable topic, well over 12 000 Google hits; clearly defined timespan (1500s onwards); clearly defined culture, liturgy, Hebrew pronunciation, liturgical music, etc. — but still at risk for being deleted soon. Please help me save this article (which can become very thorough if it isn’t erased first) and category...! -- Olve 08:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletionism facing (Judaism) articles 

message: I just put a bunch of stuff we've got to look at on my profile. --Yodamace1 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More to do

message: Jerusalem Day is this Friday, and it will be noted on the main page.  I would be nice if the article was in better shape.  If possible, the article should to be expanded. Jon513 13:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yom Yerushalayim 

message: * Haredi_rabbis, Religious Zionist Rabbis.
* Modern Orthodox Rabbis
The categories were not agreed on by consensus and promote confusion. Better to revert to having all rabbis under Modern Orthodox, then having them spilt up into duplicate and confusing cats like choosing between Hassidic and Haredi, etc... --Shuki 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbi categories for deletion 

message: Hi: I disagree with the above CfD votes nominated by User:Shuki and User:Nesher. The categories are clear and precise, and it seems that Nesher and Shuki are not fully familar with the way categories are set up and constructed with super-categories first and a number of extending sub-categories. The numbers of rabbis in :Category:Orthodox rabbis was growing and some changes were introduced to create accurate sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories, something that is done all the time on Wikipedia. The new categories and sub-categories were created based on fact, logic, and reality. If they had problems with it, Nesher and Shuki could have brought the subject over here for some discussion if they had more to say and wanted to bring others in and share their views. However, now that there is a formal vote, it becomes a broader issue, and it can be opened up further here as well. 
The votes are presently taking place at:
#Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Haredi rabbis
#Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis
#Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis
#Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 24#Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis
Thank you and Shabbat Shalom! IZAK 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox rabbis categories for deletion

message: Was there a consensus about this move? 
If there was a discussion about this, I missed it. See also Solomon (ancient). ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Humus: Your hunch about the Solomon article/s is correct. Biblical account of King Solomon should be moved and redirected to Solomon which should be about the MAIN character in history, who happens to be the Biblical Solomon. There are other precedents for this, how about Abraham, David, Joseph -- are we going to mess those up as well? Obvioulsy not,  and this sets a bad precedent. If people want to have a page that leads to other "Solomons" or to show other uses of the name, then use should be made of a Solomon (disambiguation) page. It is ridiculous that Solomon's fame is presented as stemming from an Islamic POV, when that subject deals with the Koran (how about Solomon in the Qu'ran for that?) So it needs some sorting, and the original Slomon, alone should remain as the only name for the king by that name. This is just another example of how a few people who seem to know nothing about a subject can get together, make a little vote, and create entirely false moves. I don't have enough time to deal with that right now. Best wishes. IZAK 12:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please consider voting at Talk:Biblical account of King Solomon#Move me back to Solomon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Solomon]] is a redir to [[Biblical account of King Solomon]]? 

message: Please review my comments above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Self-promotion... I thought this subject had been dealt with already, but as happens so often when it comes to POV-pushers, that sentiment was apparently premature... :-\  Tomertalk 08:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone's interested...