Category talk:Orthodox rabbis

message: :Category:Contemporary Orthodox rabbis is now redundant and should be deleted. In place, there are now more precise categories (which this episode has revealed to be overdue) and into which the so-called "contemporary" rabbis have been placed. If anyone would like to indicate that a rabbi is presently ALIVE then just put in the :Category:Living people and automatically the reader knows that the rabbi is with us! 
Thus under :Category:Orthodox rabbis there is now some new sub-categories using KNOWN and accepted non-controversial academic and ecyclopedic nomenclature:
*:Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis (for rabbis identified with Modern Orthodox Judaism)
*:Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis (for rabbis identified with the BROAD Religious Zionist Movement)
*:Category:Haredi Judaism
**:Category:Hasidic Judaism
**:Category:Haredi Judaism in Europe
***:Category:Hasidic Judaism in Europe
**:Category:Haredi Judaism in Israel
***:Category:Hasidic Judaism in Israel
**:Category:Haredi Judaism in the United States
***:Category:Hasidic Judaism in the United States
**:Category:Haredi rabbis
***:Category:Haredi rabbis in Israel (all Haredi Judaism non-Hasidic and some Sephardic rabbis in Israel go here)
****:Category:Hasidic rabbis in Israel (sub-category of Haredi rabbis in Israel and a place for rabbis associated with Hasidic Judaism)
***:Category:Haredi rabbis in the United States (all Haredi Judaism non-Hasidic and some Sephardic rabbis in the United States go here)
****:Category:Hasidic rabbis in the United States (sub-category of Haredi rabbis in the United States and a place for rabbis associated with Hasidic Judaism)
***:Category:Haredi rabbis in Europe
****:Category:Hasidic rabbis in Europe
**:Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis (for rebbes and rabbis of Chabad-Lubavitch)
*If there is any doubt, or if a rabbi cannot be clearly placed into one of the above, he should remain in :Category:Orthodox rabbis.
The above should go a long way towards sorting out the ever-growing list of Orthodox rabbis of all shades and parties etc. IZAK 07:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More precise system based on recognized names 

message: IZAK - what have you gone and done? I created one new category called "contemporary Orthodox Rabbis (the name might have been a mistake - so you could have changed it to "living rabbis" - big deal), gained at least the partial acceptance of Bachrach and Shuki and was completely uncontroversial - living rabbis are alive, there's no doubt about that.
While I accept that I acted hastily and should have consulted other "wikipedians", a consensus on this issue is elusive and we've been bogged down by similar debates for eons. That being the case and with all my rushing - you've acted completely unilaterally and created upwards of ten new categories! I was trying to clean up the situation while you've come along and fragmented things.
Please explain to me: who can define whether X Rabbi is "haredi" and Y is "Modern Orthodox"? What in the world is "Religious Zionist Orthodox"! Are "hassidim" not "Haredi"? You've brought in some major POV issues. Also, I regard it as a grave injustice to the memories of many, many holy religous Rabbis since the Middle Ages and beyond to lump them in the Category:rabbis section with modern Reform "Rabbis". They are acknowledged today as Orthodox - even if that term is new it is clearly definable and any Jew can answer a straight yes or no - one cant say the same about "Modern Orthodox" or "haredi" - religious people study their works - yet they are considerd in the same league as Geiger and Medelsohn! I fail to see the logic.
While I may have overdone it, you have in my opinion exacerbated the situation. Please take note - we both need concensus. Nesher 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, I am truly sorry that you are in the galut. --Shuki 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuki: Me too, but what can we do, we can only work within the time and place that H-shem places us into. Hopefully I can get out the galut soon, but please also remember, that the galut is not just a "place" it is also a mindset and far too many Israeli Jews are in a worse "galut" because they do not live within the world of Torah. Thanks for your brachah though, I loved it! IZAK 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about unilaterism, I have to add that I unilaterally removed all pov and cfd messages from these categories, as no rationale for them was given on talk pages and on project pages for the deletion. This does not necessarily mean that I disagree with all of these tags (my opinions are at the bottom of the talk page - I am interested in feedback), but the procedures should be followed as they were designed. In the meantime we have a little more time to discuss things and perhaps reach a consensus. I hope it can be done. Regards, gidonb 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unilaterism

message: Wikipedia guidelines: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Nesher 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with Nesher's statement here. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose arguing? Not me! IZAK 04:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Message for Izak: 

message: breathing - it's more than just a good idea. :-)
Serously, everyone relax and cool it on the name calling. (and yes, I mean everyone). Not everyone is happy with what everyone else has done, but I've dealt with all of you in the past, and know you all to be mature adults. I know that while we may all have our own opinions, and may be stubborn at times, I have no doubts that we can all work together to try and find a workable solution. Keep the communication lines open because that's the only way to move forward. --Bachrach44 19:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breathe 

message: This is only tangentially related to the previous discussions, but while taking a look at the Hebrew wiki I noticed something very cool. They have timelines at the top of each rabbi's page showing when they lived in comparison to the periods of halakha. Take rashi, the Maharal, and rabbeinu tam for examples of what I mean. For us visual learners, this is a wonderful little tool. I'm curious to know what other people think of it. It appears that they did it by having one image for each rabbi (assumably with a generic template which we can borrow and then just overlaying red bars). Should we try to copy this feature? --Bachrach44 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all open to creative innovations... Nesher 21:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree, while it is rare, I do not believe that it is 'illegal' to place minimal information on a cat page where no article is directly rlated to it. --Shuki 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuki: Only robbing banks and such-like is illegal, but on Wikipedia it's best to avoid confusion, so that is why timelines will do more harm than good on a category page, because timelines belong in articles, not in category pages. IZAK 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my initial post, so let me clarify: If you look at the examples I provided, you'll notice that they're the pages for the individual rabbis themselves. That's what I was hoping to immitate. I mentioned it here simply because this talk page was getting some attention, and I wanted to see what other people thought of the idea. I agree that a minimal amount of text should go on cat pages, so I was talking about putting them on the rabbis page, much like the Hebrew wiki has done, not putting a timeline on the cat page. --Bachrach44 15:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I agree with you 100%, the timelines on the Hebrew pages are very nice and if anyone can do it, it would enhance the English articles about those rabbis. Category pages should be left uncluttered, they serve a focused purpose: To CATEGORIZE a subject only. IZAK 08:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time lines 

message: What do you say to creating a category called "20th Century Orthodox Rabbis" (or something to that effect). Also, to clear up the unwieldy array of new categories describing rabbis as "Modern Orthodox", "Religious Zionist Orthodox(?)" and "Haredi/Hassidic", who supports lumping these together - with a few exceptions - into a "Living Orthodox Rabbis" category? Nesher 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nesher: You are reverting to the problem you started. There was nothing wrong with :Category:Orthodox rabbis. Why are you so obsessed by wanting a category for "living rabbis" of any sort? Do you have an agenda? The words Orthodox rabbis should be identified by the known and recognized ideological and official movements that they are identified with and not by casual names like "contemporary" or "living" or even "20th century" (living Orthodox rabbis probably would prefer not being identified with the Christian centuries in any case.) The following is all correct and should be retained as an important guide: :Category:Modern Orthodox rabbis is not "unwieldy" it is for rabbis associated with Modern Orthodox Judaism. Similarly :Category:Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis is for rabbis associated with the Religious Zionist Movement. The super-category :Category:Haredi rabbis and its sub-categories will help to categorize those rabbis who are not just associated with Haredi Judaism but with one of its main sub-divisions Hasidic Judaism. All these categorizations are logical and clear. IZAK 05:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It simply seems like good practice to seperate out rabbis from different halachic eras. In this case, some dividing line should be drawn around WWII. (How about if we say Ortho rabbis from before WWII, and then another cat for Ortho rabbis post WWII, and we can also have seperate cats for "orientation" (modern, haredi, etc.)). There's nothing wrong with dual categorization. --Bachrach44 22:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th Century Rabbis 

message: IZAK: I sense a very fine line between the two categories above. True, there are many Religious Zionist Rabbis that are in fact Haredi - but virtually all of the Modern Orthodox Rabbis in their category are religious zionist. Thus, I beleive that Rabbis should be categorised based on their RELIGIOUS beliefs and not their POLITICAL beliefes, the latter being far more subjective, with a far greater spectrum and also defying logical categorisation. 
The effect would be that Rabbis in the Religious Zionist Category (essentially a fickle political division) would be moved to either MO or Haredi. This further unifies and consolidates the existing structures and in my view is something that should be considered. Also, Bachrachs's idea of timelines on category pages may not be practical, but it most certainly should be a welcome addition to the articles themselves. Thank you, Nesher 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nesher, get with it. MO is for foreign rabbis, RZ is for Israeli rabbis who are identified with knitted kipas, even though they aren't similar at all. Agreed, these categories are very poor. I'd rather do without both. --Shuki 22:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuki: you say "MO is for foreign rabbis, RZ is for Israeli rabbis who are identified with knitted kipas, even though they aren't similar at all.". First of all, many in the RZ category ARE M.O. - and for the many who are not (as you rightly point out), well they can surely be moved to "Haredi" with RZ being scrapped. Second of all, why is "MO...for foreign rabbis"? Surely there are MO in Israel too and by extension, RZ outside of Israel? Hence, "I'd rather do without both" is a statement I'd heartily endorse - although if we had to keep one, as Gidon says, it would be MO. RZ is definately redundant. Nesher 16:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nesher: Shuki is being too rigid when he splits the two categories between Israeli and and foreign rabbis. But it is true, in the United States most of Modern Orthodox Judaism's rabbis are identified and known as "Modern Orthodox rabbis" and are not known as "Religious Zionist rabbis" who are based mostly in Israel. It is important for everyone to note that by definition Modern Orthodox Judaism means that its adherents have a POSITIVE connection and love for Israel and Zionism (most have belonged to the Mizrachi movement in the USA), it's part of the definition of what makes them "Modern Orthodox", unlike Haredi rabbis who do NOT have a positive connection to Zionism (they belong to Agudah or some independent Hasidic group). It is understood and accepted that the rabbis associated with present-day Religious Zionism are also almost always positive about modernity in the same ways that Modern Orthodox rabbis are, so it is true that they are "part of" Modern Orthdoxy but it is NOT in a primary sense, and this is where Shuki's observations have some truth (but it's not a "split" as he states). Thus the categories are accurate, they describe their rabbis precisely as those familiar with this subject will attest. Again, if a rabbi is very well known for being prominent in both worlds and is identified and known as such then that places him in both categories of "Religious Zionist" and "Modern Orthodox". If there is doubt, then simply leave him as an "Orthodox rabbi" which is NPOV. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Shuki: Actually, you are being unreasonable because this is not a case of creating random splits and categories. It was positive about your suggestion that a Sephardic category be created. Fine. Now it looks like you are out to just "play games" which is a waste of time. At this point, while it is true that we can divide rabbis up according to ethnic, national, and chronological lines, there is no point in rushing into even more categories when these are taking time to be digested. No-one is "demeaning" anything. We are striving for accuracy, but I do believe that at this time, on the English Wikipedia at least, the vast majority of articles about rabbis happen to be about Ashkenazim. The super-category Haredi rabbis is also all-inclusive and only when a new category is created are articles placed into it. Thus the Haredi rabbis category works fine as including all Asheknazi Haredi rabbis and is fine for now as it stands, awaiting more discussion. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Gidon: Thank you for your input. What is "ill-defined"? Are you saying that the Religious Zionist Movement is "ill-defined"? Where did you get that notion from? It's as "well-defined" as any other movement within Judaism, in fact it's much better defined because to belong to it one must have a POSITIVE connection with the State of Israel and modern Zionism in all its dimensions (political, ideological, religious), unlike the Haredi groups or the Reform movement that was one of Zionism's earliest opponents. As for the Sephardic rabbis in Israel category I do think it is more than justified (and that is why I had initially agreed with User:Shuki) that because the Sephardim make up almost half of Israel's population (in an ethnic sense), BUT they ALSO have their own unique religious heritage (after all, even the Shulkhan Arukh [Jewish Code of law] is split 50/50 between Sephardim and Ashkenazim). Thus, they denote MORE than just an "ethnicity" because in fact the word "Sephardic" denotes an entire system in Halachah with its own long and indepenedent rabbis (Maimonides being the greatest of them -- yet Ashkenazim do not follow his Halacha ruling, even thoough they study his works.) Thus, "Sephardic rabbis" (and they are today most prominent in Israel) are as UNIQUE and recognizable in their way of Torah life and accurately deserving of their unique category as well. IZAK 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbis with contemporary directions in Judaism

message: I'm growing tired of this hideous maze of rabbis categories. Hence I've put forward a couple of Cfd's so there can be a fair vote and debate about this matter open to everyone. I will hopefully add the Haredi rabbis category and MO categories to the list of those being considered, I repeat only considered for deletion. If they're worthy, of course they'll get voted to be kept, and if not... Nesher 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just browsing around the Rabbis category today and... 

message: Cross-posted from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism:
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 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox rabbis categories for deletion

message: *Look what the French do - very clever. Nesher 10:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a seemingly far better approach. Telzer 07:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better ways of organising Rabbis