:::: Can someone please look at the article, he is trying to de-judaize the wall. I have no idea what his problem is, I know he's anti-Zionist, but I feel he is going too far this time. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::: Can someone please look at the article, he is trying to de-judaize the wall. I have no idea what his problem is, I know he's anti-Zionist, but I feel he is going too far this time. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I still seek volunteers, the Western Wall is falling down, it's now Al Buraq, ready for Chesdovi on the PA payroll, so whenever you are ready to take a look at the article, we need all eyes. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::I still seek volunteers, the Western Wall is falling down, it's now Al Buraq, ready for Chesdovi on the PA payroll, so whenever you are ready to take a look at the article, we need all eyes. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::::That is a personal attack, a totally distorted alarmist report, and an attempt to stack the page by rallying a tag-team.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
3 Tammuz falls on July 9, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is the observance moved a day? And if so, is it moved to 2 Tammuz or 4 Tammuz? I'm not sure because this is a Chabad sect holiday and thus it isn't found on most online Jewish calendars.
10 Kislev - Again, same problem as before. It is a Chabad observance falls on December 10, 2016, which is Shabbat. Is it moved, and if so, to what day? 9 Kislev or 11 Kislev?
Counting the Omer has no bearing on Yom Kippur Katan. There is no YKK in Nisan, but not because of Sefirat haOmer—only because there is no fasting during Nisan (except firstborn on Erev Pesach or a bride and groom on their wedding day). There is YKK in Iyar. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info on Yom Kippur Katan. I know that the Chabad days are not considered under halakha, given that they are a splinter sect, but I'm sure the Chabad have their own rules about it. Is anyone able to direct me to a resource that might be able to answer my query in regards to Chabad observances? Asarelah (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. And I admit, I didn't actually read the Chabad article, only the parts about the observances, so my bad. Also, the article on Mother's Day in Israel has it falling on Shevat 30, which is Yom Kippur Katan. Is this just an odd instance of bad scheduling on the part of the Israeli government, or have I mixed up Yom Kippur Katan? Asarelah (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I *did* read it, I just thought it was odd that they'd schedule it on a Yom Kippur Katan and I wasn't sure if 30 Shevat was observed as a Yom Kippur Katan, as the Yom Kippur Katan article lists several exceptions and I thought 30 Shevat might be one that wasn't listed. I presume by your response that it isn't an exception. Thank you. Asarelah (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone even gave it a second thought, to be honest with you. I suspect that Yom Kippur Katan is just about unknown in the secular Jewish world; it is not observed universally even in the Orthodox world. And flipping the problem the other way, I suspect that within the YKK-observant world, Mother's Day is just not an issue. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do something about article: Masoretic Text because I'm thinking about blanking the whole page and I did attempt to blank it BTW. The article has been mostly of it unsourced since who really knows, and this project was to focus on the religious foundation of Judaism such as articles: Torah, Book of Haggai, Hebrew Bible etc. What happened? Anyways, I just wanted to let everyone here know, have a happy new year — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The study of the Masoric texts, and the so-called Masorah Ktana and Masorah Gdolah, is not much practiced in this time and age among religious Jews. Unfortunately. I am a bit of a fan myself, but I doubt that the article is much about the Masorah Ktana and Masorah Gdolah, probably more about the academics of it. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JudeccaXIII: Most of the most longstanding material is substantially taken from the out-of-copyright 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Masorah by Crawford Howell Toy and Caspar Levias (fr), originally imported by User:RK in two edits in September and November 2003. diff1, diff2
Certainly, as indeed User:RK specifically remarked in the edit summary of the first of those diffs, this should all be checked against much more current sources -- especially any content that is interpretative or evaluative. But to the extent that the material is limited to a factual summary of what the Masorah contains, or history of how it had been studied up to the turn of the 20th century, that part probably still holds up pretty well. Jheald (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do is scrap any material not important to the overall subject of the article. Mostly focus on unreferenced content which I say is about 75% of the article. Basically what I'm saying if anyone doesn't understand...the article needs an overhaul...mostly. It be nice if any Jewish editors who is informal on the subject can at least give a start on the basics such as use of worship, composition dating, place, other religions views etc. stuff like that. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a bit late to this game, and pretty uneducated about it, as I know little about Open Orthodoxy, but am I right in thinking that tranches of Modern Orthodoxy (let alone Chareidim) regard it as Conservative, while Open Orthodoxy itself defines itself as Orthodox?
I'm not trying to open a fight here, merely ascertain if that's the case (yes/no).
If so, we have a bit of an issue with biogs like this one: Shmuly Yanklowitz, as he'd say he's Modern Orthodox (as the bio currently has it) while others would see that as POV. Yanklowitz has made public statements about his Open Orthodox stance ([1]).
Would the simplest way to handle this to be to define Open Orthodox people as Open Orthodox, with a footnote explaining the divergent views?
Now that we have an Open Orthodoxy article, what are participants' views on creating a Category/ies to match and relabelling people like Weiss and Yanklowitz from Modern Orthodox to Open Orthodox? --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OO Rabbis never claimed to be Modern Orthodox, they claim to be Orthodox. Open Orthodoxy is claimed to be Orthodox, not a subpart of Modern Orthodoxy. I am in favor of 1) putting OO rabbi by the lead, not MO rabbi, since they are not MO rabbis, and 2) creating a OO Rabbi category. Sir Joseph(talk)16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would only caution that before labeling a rabbi Open Orthodox, you should be sure they either self-identify as such or are described as such by reliable sources. Over the years, I've seen many Wikipedia articles refer to rabbis who were not Orthodox—but not Reform either—as Reform. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has just added the Open Orthodoxy article to the Orthodox Judaism category, which, once again, is uncomfortable. I think we need to start by creating Category:Open Orthodox Judaism, so all relevant articles can fall out of that, and we can host that within Category:Jewish_religious_movements, thereby avoiding the is it/isn't it argument over whether it truly is "Orthodox". --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think. But Hasidic Judaism is in the next level up of the Cat tree, along with Conservative Judaism and the Essenes. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hasidic should be under Haredi, and Haredi under Orthodox. Or Haredi on the same level as Orthodox, both in Jewish religious movements. Presently Hasidic is in both Haredi and Orthodox and Jewish religious movements, and I think the Orthodox should be removed from both latter. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Haredim would be the Israeli Litvish, the Bnei Brakers,etc. the Chasidim are all over the spectrum in terms of observance, Hasidisism is a movement under Orthodoxy, but it's not under Haredism, it's a spiritual movement similar perhaps to Haredism, but they're not always the same thing, especially if we want to make it easier for people to search. Sir Joseph(talk)20:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, but I think not, and I think it would be better to have Hasidic and Haredim both under Orthodox. Hasidic spans many areas and it's best to just keep it under Orthdox, or I would even begin to think to keep it under Jewish, not even under Orthodox. Sir Joseph(talk)15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Dweller's questions, misunderstood by SirJoseph, I do know why this is so. Somebody, perhaps it even was I, decided these are non-diffusing subcategories. If we decide so, then that decision should be implemented for all denominations. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to tidy it up. It'd be very confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the concepts. It looks like Hasidim are not Orthodox. --Dweller (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Haredi article makes no sense, which I agree with. Look at the Haredim in Brooklyn living in Midwood and Marine Park going to Brooklyn College!?!? I think they're not Haredim, but I lost that battle ages ago. That whole article is messed up. As for hassidim and haredi, the hassidim are wide areas, and should not be synonymous with haredim so they should not be under the category of haredim. Sir Joseph(talk)17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sir Joseph, Hassidim are not synonymous with haredim, not at all. Debresser, weigh in on this:
Overall, I would consider there to be two major subcategories of haredim:
Hassidim
"Mitnagdim/Yeshivish/Litvish" (or whatever label you want to put)
The above two groups are substantially distinct from each other. (I say "substantially" because I don't want to be on record as saying that it's impossible for someone to exist in the intersection of those groups.)
Beyond that, there may be some additional people that don't fall neatly into either of the two camps above ("Oilamish," in Debresser's lexicon above).
I would define Haredim, in turn, as a subgroup of Orthodox. The main other subgroup of Orthodox would be something around "Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist", and it's a separate issue whether or not there shouldn't really be more than one such subgroup identified (possibly with substantial overlap). Haredim and this other group also have a non-empty intersection, and I'm sure there are people who don't fall neatly into any of those groups, either. And this leaves out the question of Open Orthodoxy, which I'm not even going to touch at the moment.
Finally, I'm not sure what your problem with Haredim going to Brooklyn College is. In the US, it's pretty common for haredim (male and female, as far as it goes) to attend college. Most of the time, that study is pretty vocational in nature; it's a lot less common for haredim to focus on liberal arts, for example. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, MO and RZ are not the same, at least in Israel. What I mean by Haredim going to college is that the lead basically says Haredim don't go to college. Brooklyn Jews aren't haredim, they're yeshivish. Haredim is a modern term brought over by Israelis. An American may think they're charedi but when they land and call themselves a charedi, they'll be in for a rude awakening when they do so. That's all I meant. Go to Israel and see any charedi going to college, it doesn't really happen, even high school with secular subjects doesn't really happen, even Maarava has to be outside of the J'Lem and only now is some sort of programs beginning to start for classes for charedim in Israel. As for chassidim, there's more of an overlap as for spiritual and cultural and identity, that I think it should stop at the Orthodox level, and not go under charedi. Sir Joseph(talk)18:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't say that at all. צא ולמד.
I'll be the first to admit that there are differences between communities, and differences between Israel and other places. But what you are trying to say, I think, is that "Haredi" is uniquely an Israeli institution, and that to the extent there is a commonality between yeshivish and chassidish Jews in hutz la'aretz, you'd use a different term (like the unpleasant term "Ultra-Orthodox"). I think, though, that the term "haredi" here is being used broadly to include all these communities. Therefore, I think my category hierarchy is substantially correct. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed a poorly cited (and I think inaccurate) remark about Sephardim in New York in an article about a Sephardic congregation in Seattle. There are multiple issues: definition of Sephardim (e.g. I would not consider Bukharan Jews to be Sephardim, but perhaps others think otherwise), and an apparent claim that Sephardim are now a higher percentage of New York Jews than of Seattle Jews, which I find absolutely implausible. I've been able to address some that were merely about grammar, but not the issues of substance, and would appreciate if someone with more expertise would take a look. See Talk:Sephardic_Bikur_Holim_Congregation#New_York. - Jmabel | Talk00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Is Sanders a religious Jew?. The subject is very interesting. There is an ongoing debate as to whether Sanders is a religious Jew, with some claiming that there is no possible other meaning to the word "Jewish". I personally strongly agree with our article at Jews#Who is a Jew?, which says:
"Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used. Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion"
You claim to follow WP:NOR, and yet you feel perfectly comfortable engaging in original research and making your own determination what type of Jew Sanders is -- nonsense that noreliable sources would bother with. All the while, Donald Trump's infobox describes him as a Christian. Fucking troll. — MShabazzTalk/Stalk23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Leo Frank article to this WikiProject since it was on Jewish History but not here. I got this article to GA last year and might eventually go for FA. If anyone is interested in assessing the article importance or offering any comments, I'd appreciate it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, we have terms that imply a distinction, and a huge scholarly literature that to-and-fro on the merits and demerits of making precisely a distinction. Secondly, personal religious commitments have historically inflected these discussions (though one will find Christian scholars conflating them, and Jewish scholars marking the putative differences).
While I think your comment,'Most sources do not make any differentiation between antijudaism and antisemitism. It is a minority, perhaps WP:FRINGE,' widely off the mark, I also think Kendrick's view, while historically correct in noting that the distinction is widespread, too rigid.
In modern Christian apologetics ( (Fr.)E. H. Flannery,"Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism: A Necessary Distinction," JES 10 (1973): 581-88 anti-Judaism is taken to be 'a purely theological reality …which rejected Judaism as a way of Salvation but not Jews as a people.') all sorts of fine distinctions are made, which even hair(Hare)-split anti-Judaism (accepted as distinct from anti-Semitism) down into ‘prophetic anti-Judaism’, ‘Jewish-Christian anti-Judaism’ and ‘Gentilizing anti-Judaism’!!)
You'll find the real or apologetic distinctions merits weighed in virtually every scholarly exegesis of the Gospels of Matthew and St.John, particularly regarding the latter.
The historical problem is that for the first several decades, probably the majority of 'Christians' were, like the founders of the 'heresy', Jews, and after the Destruction of Jerusalem, the rift between the developing rabbinical form of Judaism, and its Christocentric messianic sect was increasingly suffused with polemical vehemence (Birkat haMinim) vs. St.John and particularly the letters of Paul, who, if somewhat anachronistically, looks very much like what is loosely called today a 'self-hating Jew'. All this took place in the larger discursive context of pagan attitudes, from Hellenic philosemitism to classical and Egyptian Judeophobia. Teasing all of these strains apart, making careful hermeneutic distinctions that, suspending our post-Holocaust worldview's retrospective rereading tendencies, that take into account the ethnic, creedal, regional distinctions of what were distinct cultural/anthropological/historical realities, is no easy matter. All you have, in short, is academic controversy over these distinctions.
Langmuir himself, who can see the problem with the defensive ecclesiastical distinction, nonetheless himself, marks off the two, preferring anti-Judaism to refer to polemics down to 1150, based on real competitive rifts between Judaism and Christianity, and the kind of fantasy-fed 'chimerical' discourse against Jews raising the hysterical myths of hatred of Jews based on ritual killing world-money managers, racial odium. I'm not persuaded: as Norman Cohn showed (Europe's Inner Demons etc.) this fanrtasy is rooted in ancient traditions, but certainly what scholars call anti-Judaic in early times fed into the classical anti-Semitism of more modern times in a profound way. Hope this is of some help.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Western Wall
Can you please join me at Talk:Western Wall and try to salvage the article? I'm especially trying to save the article's Jewish section. Chesdovi, who I think is a member here, has been inserting Satmar NK POV and as the section now reads is heavily slanted towards the Kotel being a source of disunity, not a place of prayer, etc. It's a messy section. Any help would be appreciated. He has been inserting POV/Fringe elements such as boycott of the western wall. Sir Joseph(talk)17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please look at the article, he is trying to de-judaize the wall. I have no idea what his problem is, I know he's anti-Zionist, but I feel he is going too far this time. Sir Joseph(talk)02:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still seek volunteers, the Western Wall is falling down, it's now Al Buraq, ready for Chesdovi on the PA payroll, so whenever you are ready to take a look at the article, we need all eyes. Sir Joseph(talk)04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that none of these discussions were notified here.
I don't have a problem with the merging of the parent categories, as it's not unreasonable to see a single global movement here -- UK Masorti shuls frequently have rabbis who trained at JTS (if they weren't trained at Leo Baeck in London), host visits and talks by U.S. Conservative rabbis, use the Etz Hayim Chumash, etc.
But it does seem to me that Category:British Masorti rabbis should be preserved as the name the name for the rabbis of this movement in the UK, as how the national movements in the UK (and also Israel) self-identify is as Masorti, not Conservative, as for example overwhelmingly used on the website http://www.masorti.org.uk/, albeit they may be affiliated in turn with the World Council of Conservative Judaism. (Now renamed Masorti Olami ?).
If you have a good reason to think that the Cfd decision doesn't pertain to British rabbis, then just ignore the discussion, which was perhaps too general, and undo the changes to articles about British rabbis. I do agree it is a shame this Cfd wasn't reported here. For most Afd's there is always some editor who is so kind to inform us. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mikveh article
Notorious edit warrior and POV editor VanEman has made some edits to the Mikveh article, which I successfully stopped by adding a source. Now he has removed a lot of information, and because he is edit warring, the page was protected after his removals. Fairness compels me to add that VanEman has also made some good additions to the article, and that sources can easily be found for the statements he removed. Please comment on the talkpage sections. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
