Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

New Article Request

Hachnosas Sefer Torah, I think this article would be a great addition to Wikipedia, if anyone knowledgeable enough can write it, that'd be great. The Terminator p t c 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I renamed the article Hachnasat Sefer Torah, since that's the more common spelling.—Biosketch (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

New article: Yadua the Babylonian

		It's no accident - it's Yadua the Babylonian!
		Yadua the Babylonian is the latest addition to our series on tannaim who originated in the diaspora. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, look, I have a trumpet. Guess what, I can blow it too. Pwaaap! JFW | T@lk 22:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we launch a Jewish history newsletter similar to The Bugle? Chesdovi (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Tiszaeszlár Affair

Note: good article but unreferenced – Tiszaeszlár Affair. I'll try to work on it, but probably not this week.—Biosketch (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ref'd to the JE? Chesdovi (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Historic designation of the Palestine region

Please comment at Historic designation of the Palestine region. Chesdovi (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Dor Daim / Talk:Dor Daim

There was/is an assertion in the Dor Daim article (oddly in ref footnote, which is a bit OR) that the pronunciation Dardaim was offensive to Yemeni Jews.... but WP:RS sources in Google Books are clearly with Dardaim, as appears to be he.wikipedia. This is an area why WP:RS perhaps shouldn't be applied rigidly, if a certain pronunciation really is offensive to the group being described. Does any one have any source, even a blog, which would clarify whether this is OR or fact? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC) ‎

WPJ Activism Alert

		Help save Lviv's Golden Rose!
		The Golden Rose Synagogue in Lviv, Ukraine was designated a World Heritage Site in 1998. Built in 1582, it was one of the oldest and most beautiful synagogues in Europe. Having survived Nazi desecration, the Ukrainian authorities have now allowed it to be demolished to make space for a new hotel! This blatant destruction of a Jewish historic site must be stopped at all costs! Does anyone know how we can make our voices heard? Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeshivas

I ran into a bit of confusion the other day over the categorization of a non-denominational yeshiva in Canada, and wanted to ask you guys a question: is there actually a specific reason why the general Category:Yeshivas categories (except for a couple that I created just now) exist only as category redirects to Category:Orthodox yeshivas rather than as standalone categories? I realize that the majority of yeshivas are associated with Orthodox Judaism, but it's clear that there are at least a few which aren't — meaning that we really do need to have categories for non-Orthodox yeshivas too. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud

I'd like to ask for more eyes on Talk:Criticism_of_the_Talmud#Reverting_article_vandalism. This was an article created and edited almost exclusively by Noleander that I reverted to a redirect months ago. In the last two days two brand new accounts have shown up and in their first five edits reverted to Noleander's version. (Apologies for dragging Noleander's name through the mud, but the situation is what it is.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't hold a brief for the article, but just a note that WP has Criticism of the Bible and Criticism of the Qur'an articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish in Shabbat

Anyone? --Dweller (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Eras of the Halakha template

I have always been a bit wary of this template which appears in many articles - what's its use? Based on a Hebrew version, I view it as needless clutter. Unless there would be a way to enbold the era in which the subject was part of (as in other templates), I say consign it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There has been no reply to this after 7 days, yet a certain editor re-adds it to a page after I removed it citing: "Should not be removed without general consensus". If the status-quo is to remain, it should be discussed here, not enforced by one editor against another. Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template Ritual purity in Judaism

Hi Debresser,

I thought from above that we could continue to use the following:

If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.

The addition of (English in brackets) in most cases leaving the Hebrew except where the article itself is named in English not Hebrew here is intended to be a help to the typical Wikipedia user who will not read Hebrew, or they'd be using he.wikipedia Please put yourself in the position of a Wikipasserby who stumbles on one of these Ritual purity in Judaism (which is already a mouthful) articles and wants to navigate, and sees a template in Polish saying:

• Czystości i nieczystości.
• Mycia rąk.
• Miesiączki.
• Choroby skóry.
• Pleśni.
• Nocnej emisji.
• Odpływ z pochwy.
• Nieczyste obiektu.
• Zanieczyszczenie ziemi narodów.
• Kontakt z martwym ciałem.

All I did was add English in brackets:

• Mycia rąk (washing of hands)

And that was less than WP:EN since many of these terms in WP:RS are described in English. Only half or less of these terms feature in the JE, EJ, JPS Tanakh, SBL texts. By normal WP standards page moves should have happened for half of these terms, to both not move them, and to remove bracketed English translations giving the WP:EN (generally I tried to follow WP:RS via Google books when adding them) makes WP less user-friendly, and goes against WP:EN. I ask you to reconsider, that English may be helpful to some en.wikipedia users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the template being renamed in English, I mean as it faces the reader, it says Ritual purity in Judaism in big blue letters, not Tumah and taharah in big blue letters. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that the translations of many terms are not precise. In addition, it is not uncommon to use accepted and short technical terms, once they have been properly introduced in an article. And additional indication can be that such has been common practice in many Judaism-related articles, even though I agree with you that sometimes it was overdone. Also, you should take the visual aspect into account. Adding all those translations for terms that are anyways linked, makes a template ugly rather quickly. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Well we'll see what others say I guess. I personally don't see that Mycia rąk (washing of hands) is aesthetically unpleasing compared to Mycia rąk on its own. As for precision Google Books in this specific case supports WP:RS for "washing of hands" and "washing the hands" but doesn't give WP:RS support for "Netilat yadayim." - and Netilat yadayim redirects to an English Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Washing_the_hands anyway... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NB "once they have been properly introduced in an article." - sure, but we're talking about how does the non-Hebrew speaker even find the article in the first place without English translations? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Debresser, I would like to restore the English translations in brackets on the template. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I really oppose this. Just the titles of the pages that are being linked. Per the "keep it simple" principle, and for nicer layout. Debresser (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc = Request for comment

There is an Rfc ongoing at Talk:Palestine#Historic_designation_of_the_Palestine_region, which touches upon the question of whether and how to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles like articles about Jewish sages. A link to this discussion has been posted above, but so far few have replied, and none from WikiProject Judaism. I'd like to remind you that this Rfc will likely determine in large measure the future use of these terms on Wikipedia, so it is important to partake in this discussion while it is ongoing. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This message violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:CANVASS in both "message" and "audience." The question being discussed is much more general than the one Debresser is concerned with, though I appreciate the fact that the RfC proposer may also have had this narrower concern in mind. When posting these types of messages please try to make them as succinct and neutral as possible. Do not intimate or state why something should be important to a certain group of people (in this case Wikiproject:Judausm members). OK? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The original poster also asked for comment from this forum. I just came to remind people. In addition, the wording of this notice is completely neutral. Also, the issue of this Rfc is a continuation of other discussions that have also all been posted here. No canvassing here. Seek third-party advise, if you like. You are welcome to strike your comment, thanks, Debresser (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How gracious, but I will not strike my comment. You and the "original poster" have been haggling over whether or not to call certain rabbis "Palestinian" in this venue, in several threads above. That much is true, yes. But the RfC is framed in a manner that covers a much more general topic than that, as I already stated. When you canvassed this board you framed the question in terms of the narrower matter that you and Chesdovi have been haggling over, and stressed how important it is for people from this project to weigh in. I'm sorry that's not neutral or unbiased. You are welcome to refactor your original post. I'd suggest something like: "There is an ongoing RfC about the use of the word Palestine when describing the geographic region of present day Israel in different historical periods. Participation is welcome." As I stated above, when you start ascribing reasons for why this discussion should be important to people here you're crossing the boundaries of a non-neutral message. This isn't a particularly bad violation of CANVASS at all, don't get me wrong, but it still crosses the line.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the Rfc is broader in scope. Which is why I used the word "touches upon", when describing why that discussion should be of interest to people here. And that needs to be mentioned, because that is the connection with this WikiProject. So sorry, I still think the wording I used is the best possible one. Feel welcome to ask third-party advice before reposting. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, the people who monitor and/or comment at this board are certainly not all WP:Judaism members. What makes you think the "audience" here would be an inappropriate one to comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When did I say it was "an inappropriate one to comment?" There is no inappropriate audience to comment on anything on Wikipedia, and the canvassing policy has nothing to do with appropriate audiences in those terms, but which audiences it is appropriate to request input from, especially when worded in certain ways. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, why does the "audience" at WP:JUDAISM violate "the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:CANVASS"? Why is it not "appropriate to request input from" WP:JUDAISM on this subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Debresser chose only this audience to encourage participation from. In his appeal to this audience he condensed a more general question into a specific one -- the question of whether and how to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles like articles about Jewish sages. It is no secret that like most religion Wikiprojects most of the participants here are members of the faith. It is also rather obvious that people who are religiously Jewish are going to be much more supportive of Debresser's side of the argument, especially when it is presented to them in this manner - the idea that a "Jewish sage" might be labelled "Palestinian" if they do not speak up. Do I have to spell it out further? Soliciting opinions at RfCs from groups of editors who you think are like-minded to yourself is not OK, especially when you word your solicitation in a manner that isn't neutral. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Those who read WP:JEW are not necessarily Jews, and, even if Jews, certainly not necessarily religious. The very person who Debresser is having this dispute with, however, appears to be both. It is therefore odd at best to claim that "this audience" and "people who are religiously Jewish are going to be much more supportive of Debresser's side of the argument". If you want to object to the wording of the notice, feel free, but please don't stereotype. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

New article: Gabriel Esperanssa

		Full of hope with Gabriel Esperanssa - our newest 17th-century Palestinian rabbi on the block!!!!!!!!!
		Check out Gabriel Esperanssa, rabbi in the holy city of Safed, the project's latest Palestinian rabbi. Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Korban Olah -> Burnt offering (Judaism)

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) has moved Korban Olah to Burnt offering (Judaism).[1] Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Following a Sept 2 note on Talk:Korban Olah, re WP:EN and WP:RS (211,000 GB hits ; vs 8,460 for whole offering vs 111 for Korban Olah). Again this page is another of User:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's article creations, as the 2 templates above, in this case created from 17 February 2007 Dbachmann Redirect to whole offering. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly gets 211,000 Ghits, though? Certainly not "burnt offering (Judaism)", and "burnt offering" produces tens of thousands of false positives. In addition, one should really be searching for +Korban +Olah. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See sections above on templates, where I have raised similar concerns. Debresser (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We can either deal with this on a case by case basis, or maybe we should review all of relevant article/template/category creations in the last 6 months vs WP:EN and WP:RS.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with this one, since that's what's been raised here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. Okay, but please let's start with the main point: does anyone on this Project board not support WP:EN+WP:RS in subjects related to Ancient Israel? Beause if not there's not much point debating how many of 211,000 hits for "burnt offering" and how many of the 111 hits for "korban olah" are "false positives." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a sticky subject. (Usually IZAK has the last word on the matter.) Do we move Minyan to Quorum (Judaism)? I recently moved Yochanan HaSandlar to Johanan the Shoemaker. In-icti-oculi still may need to move Tzoah Rotachat. Chesdovi (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi, fortunately I'm staying out of "sticky" areas, which means any term originating post 70CE. As far as I know Minyan and Tzoah Rotachat don't occur in ANE or Second Temple era sources, so there's unlikely to be the clean-cut WP:RS weight for WP:EN that a term like burnt offering, heave offering or priestly covenant has. In general. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see strong consensus for this, and the move puts the article name at odds with Korban and Korban Pesach, the two related articles. I'm moving it back, pending a stronger consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is the correct thing to do. I feel the English terms are more awkward than the Hebrew ones. Just as we don't move Harakiri (Seppuku) to Ritual suicide (Japanese). Debresser (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Debresser, with respect, what you feel about the use of English language for terms relating to Ancient Israel is not part of WP:IRS. WP:EN is a general policy established for all of Wikipedia, for all Wikipedia users. "korban olah" has 97 hits compared to 74,700 for ["burnt offering" + Bible]. Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) is based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. (FWIW as far as Seppuku is concerned Seppuku has 26,900 hits compared to 6,170 for ["ritual suicide" +Japan] on Google Books so not a justification for supporting a naming with 97 hits against 74,700. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I thank you for your respect. And reply in kind. You are right. That example was meant more like an illustration of the possible and inherent awkwardness of translations of certain terms.

The two main reasons to want to keep most of the Hebrew terms are.

1. The translations are not always accurate. E.g. the word "kohen" is always translated "priest". But the word "priest" is a christian term with a different meaning than the word "kohen". Or did you ever see a catholic priest bring a "korban olah"?
2. These terms haven't been in use in English very much. Certainly not outside of translations of Hebrew texts and some academic discussion. I'd like to make a point per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#No_established_usage that such is not enough to say that there is an English term which is equivalent to the Hebrew one. Debresser (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

Good that we are keeping this at mutual respect. I do like you :).

1. "priest" isn't a "Christian term" it's an English term in English "priest" means an officiating priest of any religion - pagan, Hindu, Ancient Israel, Ancient Egypt, just as kohen in Hebrew is not a Jewish term, the kohenim of Baal, the kohenim of Dagon, the kohen of Egypt, these are all pagan kohenim. Yes the term komer also exists for Nestorian/Catholic clergy, but the basic meaning of kohen in Hebrew is still priest. It isn't just the Hebrew Bible, modern Hebrew also has phrases like הכהן ההינדי ha-kohen ha-Hindu.

2. "These terms haven't been in use in English very much" - You mean the Hebrew terms haven't been in use in English very much till the 1970s? Yes I know, but that's the whole point of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), no they haven't. http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search - though I've been reminded that results deteriorate after 1000. JSTOR and Athens searches don't have the same software problem - but then they're restricted to those with passwords and have a different data pool. This is the thing, en.Wikipedia is not Artscrollpedia it is not our job to re-engineer the English language. I admit there are cases when a bit of linguisitic/social reengineering is worthwhile - but these sacrificial terms aren't part of them since modern kohens don't sacrifice animals - Adin Steinsaltz' attempt to do so notwithstanding.

Bear in mind also that korban Olah was a REDIRECT to whole offering anyway before our friend M. Ho'eElohuth came and created his article there. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I agree with you in the specific case of the "korban olah". Although not in the case of "kohen". In just want to point out we should start translating all Hebrew terms. That there are some good reasons to keep some of the articles at the Hebrew term. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, I've said this before 3 times, but happy to say it again :) :) :). I am not proposing a move of kohen. It's evident that in the bulk of modern WP:RS kohen refers to the status of a family/caste in post-Temple Judaism. I also noted before that I started a small article Priesthood (Ancient Israel) which links to Kohen in the second sentence, and which I would have thought fills the gap and voids any possible future proposal to tamper with the kohen article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This has now become a requested move: see Talk:Korban Olah#Requested move. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I note that in objecting to the move to WP:EN here on this forum, and linking to it, that you have failed here and on the Talk page to declare that you have apparently gone through the article changing "burnt offering" to "korban olah" whereever it occurs. You may wish to note that many of those sentences where you have inserted "korban olah" actually have (8x) the ref to the Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 article Burnt Offering by Morris Jastrow Jr. J. Frederic McCurdy Kaufmann Kohler Louis Ginzberg which predominantly uses English, so you are changing the English into Hebrew counter the stated refs. I have reinserted one of the removed "burnt offering" with the full Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 "Burnt Offering" article title reference, please do not remove it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree: This is not, and I repeat, not, Artscrollpedia! Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In ictu, I'm pretty sure it was you who first went through the article changing various references to "Olah" etc. to "burnt offering".[2] I merely brought the article in line with the WP:MOS, by making the wording in the article match the article name. If the article name is changed, the article wording can be changed to match it. And I didn't "remove" an instance of "burnt offering", I merely moved it to the proper location in the lede. You, on the other hand, kept making the lede non-complaint with WP:LEDE. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, of course, I absolutely certainly definitely surely unapologetically 100% was the editor who changed "burnt offering" (a) per Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) and (b) per all the sentences with Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" article as the ref, prior to renaming. In fact generally I was quite happily editing along following WP:EN and WP:RS until your object/revert/oppose. However this is a collegiate process, you are entitled to your view, and thank you for having restored "Jewish Encyclopedia - article Burnt Offering" in the footnotes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish News One

I have just created the article for Jewish News One. Does this fall under WP:Judaism as it relates to Jewish culture? If so, what sort of banners should be put? Thanks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Added it to the WikiProject. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

תודה רבה ^^ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that all the info that can be added before tomorrow (when this thing actually goes live) has been added. How does it look now? Still a start? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

R' Dov Fisher as a RS

Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tarbut_V.27_Torah regarding R' Fisher as a RS for this section. Your thoughts are welcome. Joe407 (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)

Aside from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), an unrelated issue, there are three articles Herem, Cherem, and a new one Chromim discussing 3 overlapping uses of the Hebrew term חרם . It was discussed before on Talk:Cherem but not fixed. What is the standard transliteration of heth on en.wikipedia? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As WP:HEBREW says: usually "h", rarely "ch", and always prefer an accepted spelling if such exists. This explains why we have herem, which is the normal transliteration, and cherem as the accepted transliteration of the term for excommunication. Chromim, as it is derived from "herem", should be "hromim", and I shall presently make the move. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and spelling in that article fixed. That was quite some edit. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that we have several articles on Netinim and Givonim (Gibeonites), some only differentiated by spelling. (Note that in the Talmud they are identical; others have them separate.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1, I see Natin, where are the others? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, searching just now I found Nethinim and Nethinite. I haven't tried Givoni (Gibeonites). In any merge, the traditional Jewish view should be preserved (among other views), namely that they are the same thing, even if they don't all come from Givon. Halachically, they are Rabbinic Mamzrim, although I have not as yet found a source that says the latter explicitly. (The slow pace of the Encyclopedia Talmudit means that certain topics are easier to source than others.)Mzk1 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems that the 2005 Nethinim was a cut and paste from old Enc Brit with the Protestant/Hebrew/academic "Nethinim" spelling, then the 2006 Nathinites a cut and paste from the old Cath Enc with the Catholic "Nathanites" spelling which has hardly any academic use. Merging the Cath Enc content into Britannica would be fairly straightforward as it's shorter and largely duplicate.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As per Mzk1, and lack of comment on Talk, I merged under the Hebrew transliteration, since in this case Google Books / Google Scholar clearly supported the Hebrew over the Anglicized version. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy does this article need work. Any takers? And I found another one, Natin. Would it make sense to merge with Gibeonite?Mzk1 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move related to this project

This requested move of the page Korban Olah to "Burnt offering (Bible)" may be of interest to those participating here. Comments are welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, perhaps you take it easy... You seem to be overly active of late. This was linked already above. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A general discussion is above, and the move request is hidden in the middle of it. Since I intended on posting a similar notice at Wikiproject:Religion I figured why not make a clear post about this here as well. Also, what is the meaning of your comment about me being "overly active" and suggestion to "take it easy?" It seems a bit hostile. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The link to the move proposal was outdented and clearly visible.

If I sounded a little hostile it is possibly because of your haste to propose to close a certain Rfc which has seen too little input yet, and your in my opinion unjustified accusation of canvassing above. Anyway, see you around. Have a nice week (traditional Jewish blessing after the ending of the Shabbat). Debresser (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If my opinion is that an RfC should be closed down then that is my opinion. I fail to understand why that merits hostility from you or anyone else. On a more general note, however, instead of justifying your hostility you might try simply toning it down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo recently has had "interactions" with User:Orangemike, User:Nealdowntome123 and I wouldn't be surprised if this "interesting" post [3] at User:Anupam's talk resulted in some kind of action. I am unfamiliar with this editor. Is it possible his account has been compromised? – Lionel ^(talk) 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your posting here in this manner is completely inappropriate Lionel. In fact it violates WP:NPA. I frequently have disagreements with other editors about all kinds of things, and as frequently I agree with other editors. Are you now canvassing for support specifically against a fellow editor because they don't agree with you Lionel? Pretty despicable.Griswaldo (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Artscroll Chumash/Tanakh as WP:IRS

On the Talk:Korban Olah proposed move to English an oppose has given the Artscroll Tanakh as a reference RS. Should Artscroll transliteration policy be a reference RS for en.wikipedia, or is it a Primary source? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Since Artscroll is a renowned publishing house, it's translation rules have considerable influence. Nevertheless, I think this post is really unnecessary, and there is no rule of thumb. Just judge on a case to case basis. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the rule of thumb is WP:IRS isn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse naming rules with reliable sourcing rules. Debresser (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not. Since WP:EN makes reference to WP:IRS, therefore we'd have to know if Artscroll English constitutes a WP:RS, whether it is a Primary source (I'd imagine it isn't since the commentaries are also written in Artscroll English), before counting it as a significant RS. It's still only 3 or 4 RS against 1000s, but still, if it's been raised as a reason for not using English when discussing animal sacrifice in ancient Israel. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example

this revert In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to Ezekiel as Yechezkel and Jerusalem as Yerushalayim is outrageous. What is this, Jewishwiki? Please stop this MH. Chesdovi (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That is nothing, you should have seen some of the other articles. 90% of the articles/templates/categories I've been trying to get to WP:EN over the last 3 months have been User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's work (the other 10% are junk DNA from a similar set of edits by someone else back in 2006, noted in transit). I have tried pointing out WP:EN, and to be fair so has Debresser, and Debresser has proofread and reverted some of the most bizarre edits, but Marecheth Ho'eElohuth just won't listen. He's been invited here to this project page. In some ways it's rather sad, because en.Wikipedia is desperately lacking articles on Tabernacle/Temple religious practices, and priesthood in Ancient Israel. It's also interesting to see the Malbim etc commentary on this (Could live without the Third Temple pushing, but whatever). If only Marecheth HoElohuth would accept WP:EN and WP:RS it'd actually be a useful set of contributions. In all fairness this does happen in other fields, there are constant attempts to hoist Greek/Latin/Old Church Slavonic on Christianity articles and Arabic-for-the-sake of it on Islam ones too. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If Marecheth Ho'eElohuth continues to disregard policy and thinks wikipedia is some kind of Jewish/Hebrew website, he should be sanctioned. "Yerushalayim"! Good heavens. (It's like using "Eretz Yisrael" instead of Palestine!) Chesdovi (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to start being hysterical about this. I am sure a post on his talkpage will do the job. Chesdovi, you must have meant '"Eretz Yisrael" instead of "Land of Israel"'. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone being hysterical... but there isn't a massive rush to support Wikipedia Naming conventions or WP:RS either. In any case all editors should give the benefit of the doubt to non-native English speakers and be charitable/friendly. He has tried to entitle some article creations in English: such as Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead (with the dead?), Giving of the foreleg, cheeks and abomasum, The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen (not clear what subject is), The Torah instruction of the Kohanim (= the priests are to teach the Law to others? or be taught by the Law?) where a rename for grammar reasons rather than WP:EN and WP:RS might be suggested. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the actual subject matters created by Marecheth Ho'eElohuth are welcomed, but another glaring issue is the addition of material cited to primary sources. That also needs to be addressed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

After being posted a link to view this discussion (thanks In ictu oculi) I must say I dindn't think i was this popular! :-). I appreciate the positive comments posted above and the bright criticism's. I have taken EN usage to heart and will in the future implement them in future edits to my ability. Please note though that -in terms of "archaic" usage- user In ictu oculi seems to be hung up on some ancient form of English translation of the bible that is riddled with errors upon errors upon errors.. hinting to him about more accurate translations available has been done, and at this point, im uncertain as to whether those hints have found receptivity--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, I'm glad your finally here. I did invite you here twice. But you are again making edits today which are against Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). You say for example RS usage is specifically "Kohanim sons of Tzadok" but this gets 0 results on Google Scholar, so what WP:IRS English language published sources with an ISBN do you refer to? The English spelling "Sons of Zadok" with "priest" 648 resultsIn ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NB see Chesdovi's comment above about "Ezekiel as Yechezkel and Jerusalem as Yerushalayim" - this is en.wikipedia. Do you accept the use of English spellings here? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

On the side, what is this hangup with ISBN? Lots of Jewish books probably don't have them, and I see nothing about it in IRS. Jewish scholarship is quite different from Christian, and I would thank you not to apply those rules to us. (It's enough to see Christian thoelogical terms like triumphalism, for example.) I can see Jerusalem instead of Yerushayim, but I haven't seen any consistency regarding how to spell a tzade, chet or chof. I just try to fit the page I am using, but I have seen, for example, Chupah go back and forth. Similarly, kohen is often used instead of priest, as they are not the same concept (neither is a Navi a prophet, or the book of Daniel would be in the prophets, although he was one himself), and most people "outside" would likely think you meant a Rabbi.Mzk1 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1, I do not understand the comment ""most people "outside"" - most people outside what?

ISBN isn't a "hang up", given the problem, I am simply indicating to a newish editor how he can support Wikipedia policy on naming conventions, spelling, use of English, sources, references, original research and NPOV? The point of ISBNs is the bearing on the below from WP:IRS and specific bearing on WP:NOR and WP:SPS.

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

— WP:IRS

It's isn't that "lots of Jewish books don't have them" - since evidently if they are published "with a reliable publication process" they do have ISBNs, the point is that (1) given that Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's refs are mainly primary OR sources, with no author, no editor, no title, no language, no year, no publisher, the ISBN would be an easy and convenient way of providing author, editor, title, language, year, and publisher. The second point is (2) that lots of self-published sectarian books (whether Jewish/Mormon/Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Buddhist/atheist/agnostic) don't have them. This comment "Jewish scholarship is quite different from Christian, and I would thank you not to apply those rules to us" (who exactly is "us"?) is ill-informed. For every WP:SPS from Jewish sources there would inevitably be 10x or 100x as many WP:SPS sectarian /Mormon/Catholic/Protestant/ etc. sources, the point is WP:IRS exists to prevent articles sources from sources which are generated from such sources.

Regarding the specific comment relating to the reverts and removal of English from Kohanim sons of Zadok the comment "Similarly, kohen is often used instead of priest" - please see Google Scholar, this is evidently not correct:

34 hits, mentioning the Hebrew term kohen with English Sons of Zadok of which all 34 also mainly use the English word "priest"

"sons of Zadok" + "priests/priestly" gets 739 hits

The spelling "Kohenim sons of Zadok" doesn't even get many hits on blogs/webs and other non-WP sources, such as

The prophet may soon arrive and he will make holy Cohanim, sons of Zadok, and Leviim to minister and safeguard the third Temple, respectively.

— Family Tree DNA - Cohen Zadokites

...not that I'd be opposed to Family Tree DNA - Cohen Zadokites being mentioned in the article if that is what is driving this series of article-creations.

On the basis of Google Scholar WP:RS do not use the Hebrew word kohen to refer to the kohen Melchizedek or the kohen Jethro or the kohenim of Baal or Dagan, nor to priests Ancient Israel. Instead of being "often" used in WP:RS, on the contrary it is never used except second to English "priest."

But again that isn't the main problem with Kohanim sons of Zadok etc, the main issue is the these articles are built from original research, primary sources, and contrary to WP:EN. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be making up your own rules.

A. You are assuming that "reliable publication process" implies ISBN's. I respectfully disagree. Also, it says "or".

B. I would love to wikilink everything. But one does what one can; if I did it all perfectly, I couldn't do much at all. I agree as to the rest, except for ISBN numbers. I would except Talmudinc references if taken from a copy of the Vilna edition, or similar references where almost all the common editions are copied from the same original.

C. Aside from the fact that what you say is not always true (any idea how many Artscroll Esthers there are? William Helmreich pretty much shocked his publisher when he told him), I am referring to either specifically Jewish topics, or the Jewish take on a topic. Certainly you are not going to say the Jewish tradition has no say at all on what their own books mean, just because some other more populous religion expropriated them?

D. There is way too much reliance on internet sources in Wikipedia as it is. Google or Google scholar does not necessarily give you the majority use; I reiterate what I said regarding Esther.

I am not just giving a personal opinion. I have been working in this area for a while, and most editors do not have your sort of objections. (I am referring to the subjects we are discussing, not the original subject.) You seemed to have obtained consensus regarding the original issue, no problem there; it seems it was overdone. But you also seem to be adding in rules you orginated regarding ISBN numbers ond so on; if we followed your rules, the halachic articles would be pretty much worthless.Mzk1 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mzk1

The whole point of Google Books and Google Scholar is that they are not internet sources. In particular Google Scholar picks up almost the same titles as JSTOR and ATHENS searches, but doesn't require a University password. What's the alertantive? Google-Christian Fundamentalist, Google Yeshiva, Google Messianic Jew, Google one-man-is-his-underpants-writing-a-blog?

"adding in rules you orginated regarding ISBN numbers" - I have not edited WP:IRS or WP:ISBN, and in fact I have not gone so far as to add { { isbn } } template to any of these semi-English and unsourced articles that have been proliferating over the last 5 months.

"if we followed your rules, the halachic articles would be pretty much worthless" - I have not edited WP:PSTS nor WP:EN, these are WP guidelines and owned as much by Mzk1 as anyone else, if you disagree, discuss on the Talk page of the guideline. As far as I understand halachic sources come in the same 3 types as Greek Orthodox or Mormon or Buddhist ones, just like Hebrew Bible sources, (1) primary sources, where someone quotes their own WP:OR and then adds "Ezekiel 48" as a primary WP:RS, (2) borderline primary/secondary historical sources where "St Augustine" or "the Ramban" or "Guru Arjan Dev" is given as a source, and where the editor can be using the source as an authorative/halachic/semi-sacred text, or can be making historical comment -- in which case a page number, year of publication and editor exist. It isn't that the opinions of Christian/Jewish/Sikh/Muslim/ saints/rabbis/gurus "would be pretty much worthless" if page numbers and year of publication are required, since these books do have page numbers and print years and scholarly editions.

All I'm saying is that at the moment a lot of these articles resemble someones' church/yeshiva/gurdwara blog rather than a Wikipedia article. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

PS "I am referring to either specifically Jewish topics, or the Jewish take on a topic. Certainly you are not going to say the Jewish tradition has no say at all on what their own books mean, just because some other more populous religion expropriated them?"

Q:. Would you consider the Jewish Encyclopedia, or non-Artscroll English texts by scholars such as Jacob Neusner to be "expropriation"? Because the issue with WP:EN and WP:IRS isn't "the Jewish take on a topic." In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to try to answer most of this, for the simple reason that we need other opinions and this is too far up the page to get this. However, regarding ISBN's, the phrase does not appear in IRS; this is a rule you have made up. (I do agree that people should give specific locations within the book; the Jewish Encyclopedia itself is pretty bad is this case.) I am quite familiar with IRS; I try to follow the discussions regularly and even instigated (what I consider) an important change over there.

I have checked some standard works in my library - the standard European offset Kinot, One of the two standard Mikraot Gedolot, and a Koren Tanach. None have ISBN's.Mzk1 (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mzk1

Come on please, I have repeatedly said that I do not consider ISBNs a rule, what I said was what I said, for which please scroll up. As regards Mikraot Gedolot, new ones do have ISBNs, but these are Primary Sources, so shouldn't be the base of articles in the first place. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Formatting, WP:EN, WP:PSTS, and linking when adding Primary Sources to ref footnotes

At the very least if publication years, editions, ISBNs, languages, are not going to added the sources should at least be wikilinked so that Wikireaders can click through to the primary sources:

NOT 3. ^ Midrash ha-Gadol to Bereishit 6:4 et al.

BUT 3. ^ Midrash HaGadol on Genesis 6:4, in Mordecai Margulies, editor and introduction, Midrash haggadol on the Pentateuch. Genesis. Edited From the Various Manuscripts Mosad Haraw Kook, Jerusalem 1947, reprinted 1975. ISBN.

This is what happens when these refs are wikilinked:

1. ^ The term of popular Idol Worship initiated from the Rebellion of Jeroboam up until the destruction of the First Temple -Malbim to Yechezkel 4:5

2. ^ i.e. the services of/on the Mizbeach

3. ^ Midrash ha-Gadol to Bereishit 6:4 et al.

4. ^ Rashi, Tosfot to tractate Taanith p. 17b

5. ^ Maggid Meisharim (of Rabbi Yosef Karo) p. 55b, Rashi to Talmud tractate Zvachim p. 101b

6. ^ See "Torath HaKohanim", M. Rizikoff, Minor Chap. 200

7. ^ Koheleth Rabbah Chap. 1

8. ^ Rashi to Yechezkel 43:19

9. ^ Medrash HaBiur (Sadya Al-Dmari) to Haphtorah Parshat Emor

10. ^ Malbim to yechezkel chap. 2

11. ^ Abarbanel to Yechezkel 44:18, Chafetz Chaim to the Torah, Haphtorah to Parshat Emor

12. ^ Malbim to Malachi 3:3

13. ^ Rosh to Devarim 10:8

14. ^ "Elef HaMagen (Elishevitz) to Haphtorah Parshat Emor

15. ^ malbim to Melachim 2 23:9

16. ^ Ahavath Yonathan Jonathan Eybeschutz, Abarbanel, Malbim

17. ^ the former listed in Parshat Emor (in VaYikra) and the latter in the Haftarah to Parshat Emor

18. ^ "Ohel Yehoshua" to Haftarath Emor

19. ^ "Divrei Tovah" to Shmuel 1 2:37

20. ^ Yechezkel 43:19

21. ^ as per common Kaballah teaching that north is synonymous with monetary issue

22. ^ Ahavath Yonathan to Haftarah Emor

23. ^ "Ronni VeSimchi" vol. 4, as quoted from Chasam Sofer to Orach Chayim chap. 15 (second count)

24. ^ Elef HaMagen to Haftarah Emor

25. ^ Korban Nethanel (of Damascus) to Haftarath Emor

26. ^ Talmud Bavli to Kiddushin 78b

27. ^ malbim, yonathan eibshitz, et. al

28. ^ see The Torah instruction of the Kohanim

29. ^ "Torath HaParsha" (Ahron Zakkai) to Haftarath Emor

30. ^ "Ohr HaChamah" to Yechezkel (as quoted in "Bechor Yaakov")

31. ^ Yonathan Eibshitz

32. ^ "Rav Lipman" to Vayikra 21:14 (quoted in chumash Otzar Rishonim)

33. ^ Malbim to Yechezkel 44:15-22

34. ^ Chasam Sofer to Kiddushin 78b based on Radak

35. ^ "Mincha Belula to Vayikra 21:14 (printed in Chumash "Otzar HaRishonim")

36. ^ Sifri to Devarim 33:10 (and 21:5)

37. ^ Tzavrei Shallal" of the Chid"a to Haftarath Emor

38. ^ Malbim to Yechezkel 44:24

39. ^ "Avrohom Anochi" (Avrohom the son of Chaim Palagi) to Yechezkel chap. 44

40. ^ Mishmereth Tzvi to Haftarath Parshat Emor

41. ^ Ahavath Yonathan to Haftarath Parshat Emor

42. ^ Pri Tzadik to Parshat Emor

43. ^ Malbim to Yechezkel 40:41

44. ^ Then Kann measurment of the Book of Yechezkel is described as six Amahs, with each Amah consisting of six Tefachs

45. ^ with the greater tribe of Levi including Kohanim as well

46. ^ Yechezkel chapters 45 and 48

47. ^ Serech Hayachad p. 22 (B. T. Katz, Sod H'Mgilloth)

48. ^ "Sali and its elders", introduction to chap. 1

49. ^ Geiger, Urschrift pp. 20 &c

50. ^ Avoth deRabbi Nathan 5:2

51. ^ Sifri to Devardim p. 233 (Torah Ve'Hamitzvah edition)

52. ^ Rambam to Avoth chap. 2

53. ^ Hilchoth Avodah Zarah 10:2

54. ^ Additional aspects disproving that association include a Chazalic mention that the Sadduccee and Boethusian groups favored using vessels of Gold and Silver whereas the common vessel usage of Kohanim -to negate transmission of Tumah- where typically of stone

In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy anointing oil

Not quite sure what to think. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a good example of an article that use English terms instead of Hebrew ones. But that wasn't your question, was it? Debresser (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't a WP:EN issue. My immediate reaction to the article content of an ex-Baptist/Gentile Messianic Jew hunting for self-regenerating original oil of Herod's Temple is a bit of a raised eyebrow... However, if it represents a legitimate strand of Chabad, (or some other school of Judaism), belief then the content's place in the article would be more justified. On a more general note, is there anyone on this Project who is interested in ANE topics generally? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean Vendyl Jones? What does he have to do with Chabad? In general, I agree that the subject is given undue weight in this article. If you feel like trimming it, that might be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my question, and I assume the answer is "nothing." I see various articles citing "the Malbim" as source for belief in such things as various things happening in a Third Temple, but not for this specific thing of discovering lost self-regenerating oil. I feel like trimming it yes, but was asking first. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vendyl Jones is a Noachide, by the way. (OR, I have a friend in common.)Mzk1 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Help save important image

This image needs authorship details. Any leads? Chesdovi (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

I added the WikiProject Jewish history template to Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls since the article was listed in the categories on the project page and because the sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls offer insight on Judaism practiced during the Second Temple period. I see it is also listed in this project's categories section and I am wondering if this project's template should also be added to the article. If so, is it possible someone can add it and do an initial assessment of quality & importance scales. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I went ahead and added it with an initial assessment of class B, Mid importance. Mojoworker (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename the Jadas Maccabeus article to Judah Maccabee

I've started a discussion at Talk:Judas_Maccabeus#Suggesting_move_to_Judah_Maccabee about whether to move the article to "Judah Maccabee". I'm the only participant in that discussion so far, and I would like to see more opinions expressed there before I ask a sysop to move it. Since the article is listed as being within the scope of this WikiProject, I figure that participants in this WikiProject would know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. I'm going to leave a similar message at WikiProject Military history as well in order to ensure the widest range of insightful opinions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kehuna and Kohanim

An editor has changed a bunch of spellings at Template:Kehuna and Kohanim – oddly enough the day after I made an edit to the Template. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but I did notice that one of his changes, Pinchas→Phineas, appears to be wrong, as the primary spelling used in the article is Phinehas. I'm guessing this page here gets more traffic than the Template's Discussion page, so it's probably more appropriate to leave this message here to attract attention.—Biosketch (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a mistake. The correct article is Phinehas, not Phineas about some Greek. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was a glitsch, in correcting wikilinking to dozens of articles, Ahron → Aaron, Egel haZahav → Golden Calf, Beit HaMikdash → Temple in Jerusalem, etc. occasional mistake inevitable. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In general. This edit was made by In ictu oculi (talk · contribs), who has been anglicising Hebrew terms and names in many articles of late. Do we think this is the correct thing to do? Debresser (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• This has been something I've been meaning to make time for for a couple of months since first encountering a crop of Hebrew spellings on Melchizedek in May, claiming "Malchitzadak" as a kohen and have had discussions with the editor who made those changes, and also is responsible for the crop of other "kehuna" edits, templates, new pages. I've added Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) to the Talk pages on most, if not all, of those articles. I hate to say this but WP:RS does not substantiate "kehuna" as an English term, the term is "priesthood", as per JPS, Jewish Encyclopedia, or western culture/English language in general, and e.g. search Google Books, where, interestingly, the second hit was The ABC's of God 2010 Page 211 "You may be familiar with the Beach Boys' song, mentioning God as the “Big Kehuna”. This Kehuna word, while you may think it is Hawaiian, derives from Hebrew word, Cohen, or priest of God, ןהכ. See you knew more Hebrew than you thought!" which illustrates the problem; most en.wikipedia users probably are going to think this template is Hawaiian. Admittedly there's a problem in that priesthood in Ancient Israel is distinct in English from the status quo Kohen (Hebrew: כהן מוחזק‎) where Hebrew is essential, as the kohenim of Baal illustrate, since no one would translate Kohen of Baal, so some common sense needs to be applied. But more importantly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) per WP:RS use Hebrew only for certain terms, like shofar, while more generic items like angel (Judaism), priestly breastplate, heave offering, High Priest (Judaism), are in English. WP:RS needs to be the arbiter on a case by case basis. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is precisely my point. Many editors have decided in the past to use certain Hebrew terms, and now you come along and change a great many of them to English words. I think that words like "kohen", or "Beit HaMikdash" are terms that can be explained once in the lead of an article, and then used in the text. And the reason is that the English equivalents are often imprecise. A "kohen" is not the same as a Christian priest in function, and the "Beit HaMikdash" is not just a temple for visit and worship, etc. I really think you are taking a wrong way here. It may be that in some article there are to many Hebrew terms, but in general IMHO it is better to have a well-described Hebrew term, than an ill-fitting English one. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, well overall on Wikipedia "many editors" have dictated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which indicates that WP:RS is the standard. Unlike Priestly Blessing (2006) etc., most of these "kehuna" articles are new creations in the last couple of months by Marecheth Ho'eElohuth and don't have multiple editor input, far from it. That's part of the problem.

Regarding the two examples you raise above:

1. Beit HaMikdash already redirects to the English article Temple in Jerusalem.

2. Kohen can stay where it is!

3. The new Kehuna template has already been changed to "Priesthood in Judaism" - the new Category hasn't.

The new template and new category represents a special case problem. Since a priest of Ancient Israel was similar to the kohen Melchizedek or kohenim of Baal or kohenim of Dagon "in function," but not similar to modern Kohenim "in function." Evidently Priesthood (Catholic Church) is somewhat different from Priesthood (Judaism), but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) the question is whether the word "kehuna" or the English word "priesthood" occurs in WP:RS such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, academic sources, etc.

Overall discussion here is good but ultimately application really needs to be on a case by case basis, using the Talk page and WP:RS for each article.

In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that Marecheth Ho'eElohuth wrote a few articles singlehandedly, and he uses too much Hebrew. Note that I have copyedited quite a few of his articles in the past. All I mean to say is that I think you are also exaggerating a little to the other side. Let's be liberal about this, and change terms from English to Hebrew or from Hebrew to English only when it is really better, not because we have made ourselves some rule. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly articles where the Template should use Hebrew, and some where it should use English. I would imagine the cut off point in many cases is probably where the origin is Ancient Israel vs where the origin is the Mishnah or the Talmud. For example:

• Roles --- a mix of Hebrew and English

Priestly blessing · Pidyon haBen or Redemption of the firstborn son · Tzaraath (skin disease and mildew) · The Torah instruction of the Kohanim · Sacrifice · Incense offering · Beth din shel Kohanim

• Clothing --- would require English, except Ephod and Urim and Thummim, historically Hebrew

Priestly garments : Priestly undergarments · Priestly tunic · Priestly turban · Priestly robe (Judaism) · Ephod · Priestly breastplate · Priestly frontlet? · Urim and Thummim · Priestly sash

• Miscellaneous --- a mix of Hebrew and English

The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen · Kohanic disqualifications · Holy anointing oil · Aaron's rod · Bat-Kohain · Sons of Zadok · Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead

• etc.

So, case by case per Wikipedia convention and RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a stub at Priesthood (Ancient Israel), which may take some of the overlap out of the issue.In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Where does RS come in? Sources do not have to be in English.Mzk1 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, "RS" is defined as "RS for English" in the second paragraph of the WP:Naming conventions (use English) as follows:

If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Note the use of the royal "we" in this question, too. Who is "we" and why are appeals to this board couched in terms that sound offensively overlording?--Mahmoodinsky (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kol Nidre text

I would greatly appreciate it if someone who knows how to do it, would add the text in Hebrew lettering, translit., and translation of Kol Nidre to the Wiki article. There could then be some material explaining the text and terms of this recitation. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't typically provide verbatim sources, unless very brief or discussed word for word. WikiSource a better place? JFW | T@lk 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrand and Rosh Hashanah

Gilabrand has removed some information from Rosh Hashanah in these edits. What do we say? Debresser (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is "we" and why do you think he removed the information? I read the page before and after and his editing of the page has done much to improve it. Why does an editor need "your" OK to remove Original Research and group the data in sections that make it more accessible and understood to readers? The tone of this question is very questionable--Mahmoodinsky (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Defensive much, Mahmoodinsky? To me, it seems self-evident that Debresser meant by "we" the editors who follow this Wikiproject talk page. Also, I missed the part where he said that anybody needs anyone's "OK" to do anything. As far as I can see he's merely soliciting opinions from the members of this project on recent changes to an article that's part of this project, which is a perfectly appropriate thing to do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. And Mahmoodinsky's opinion praising these edits is duly noted. Note also that Lisa has tried to revert the edits of Gilabrand as "good faith edits", only for Gilabrand to restore his edits. Debresser (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Duly noted? Sounds like you are on some kind of warpath. The issues are for all to discuss and my comments are as worthy as yours. Your incivility has been duly noted too.--Mahmoodinsky (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about: "warpath", "incivility"... I find you rather hostile, to be frank. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for input on a proposal to merge new Law of Moses article into Torah

I have initiated a discussion on a proposal to merge Talk:Torah#Merger_proposal. The issue is whether the subject of Torah Moshe is sufficiently distinct to have its own article. I was thinking originally that the Law of Moses is completely a subset of Torah (basically, Torah Moshe = Torah - Genesis), and it could therefore be a section of the larger Torah article. However, In ictu oculi has raised some interesting counter-arguments as to why this should stand on its own as an independent article. Please discuss. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is badly sourced, and includes original research and dubious content. Please have a look at it. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. I think the article should simply be deleted. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, well the talk page is there not here. I broke those paragraphs (which are badly sourced, almost as badly as any other Ancient Israel topic) out of Moses for a reason. As Ignocrates (Ovadyah) The reason is explained there. And the alternative is worse. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help, and collaborate!

One man (and his collaborators) trying to delete these category:

Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality

Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent

Jews and Judaism are both ethnicity and religion. Please help deletion. And help (collaborate) to recovery (resurrection) Category:People of Jewish descent. BevisMarks (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't User:Griswaldo come crying about canvassing? Debresser (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I noticed that Category:People of Jewish descent was deleted after this (surprisingly short) discussion. I think that should be overturned. Anybody who agrees, let's think about how to do that (post about it in the present discussion, recreate, WP:DRV). Debresser (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, BevisMarks, this "one man", as you call him, is one of the better editors of Wikipedia, who has been active in the field of categories for many years. And I may add, that I have personally found him a balanced and sympathetic editor. So let's not use terms like "one man and his collaborators"... Debresser (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, BevisMarks gets to go and apologize to Vegaswikian on his Talk page, and Debresser (naughty ;)) you can do to the same to Griswaldo. The actual talk is here. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Gerban

I know this sounds suspicious, after all the hotted discussion about calling rabbis "Palestinian". But here I have a question. The article about Mark Gerban clearly says that he is born from a Jewish mother and Palestinian father. Does that make him a "Palestinian Jew"? Category:Palestinian Jews was added today by Chesdovi in this edit. I personally think I agree with that, since he is of Palestinian ethnicity from his father's side. Nevertheless, this case is rather unique, and I would like to see if there are other opinions. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought the bigger issue remains the old old old one about whether Wikipedia should be in the business of ethnic tagging for BLPs in the first place. Mark Gerban belongs in Category:American rowers, and tagging him for ethnicity makes as much sense as tagging the Buddhist actor Steven Seagal BLP as Category:American musicians of Irish descent and category:American people of Jewish descent. The same as the outraged note about removing Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent but who aren't Jews above. :)

On a related note, I was told that the 1972 birth certificate photo caption in History of the Jews in Russia may need sourcing. Apparently modern Russia has reduced the number of documents where people are ethnically tagged. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tachash again

Is someone here knowledgable enough regarding the gemara in Shabbat to offer an opinion here (Talk:Tachash#Unclean_animals_excluded? the question is: do we rule out unclean animals from potential Tachashim? Joe407 (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Permission to discuss Hebrew calendar page

Hi I would like to add to the discussion page of the Hebrew calendar but I cannot since I am not a confirmed user and it is semi-protected. Can someone here help me become confirmed and/or become able to discuss there? Thanks. Bdenckla (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you make 10 edits (on non-protected pages) and wait for 4 days, you will automatically become confirmed. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the protection of that article will expire October 30. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone to rewrite the Judaism section of an article

My original "Request for someone to rewrite the Judaism section of an article", dated 18Jun11, is now in Archive 27, and of course I hoped someone would place it where such a request should be placed. I was unable to find such a place, myself.

This followup entry is simply to let someone know I'll feel free to rewrite the Judaism section of the Matrilineality article myself when I can find the time to do so, no earlier than a month from now, and without any further notification to anyone else. As I stated in my original request, I am totally and hopelessly unqualified for this rewriting job. At the same time, my judgment (hopefully good enough in most matters) is that my result will at least be an improvement upon the present Judaism section for most readers of Wikipedia. Again, I'm posting this identically in my own Talk page, adding it directly with my earlier 18Jun11 entry, and would like any reply entered on my own Talk page as well. On behalf of WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a big job and is best tackled by someone with access to classical and modern sources. Given the fact that such editors do not abound even in this WikiProject, perhaps you may need to approach individual people. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice needed

Two editors (Lisa, Jayjg) appear to have a problem with additions I have made to Ger toshav since Mzk1 pointed out that it was not correct to say that the term ger toshav did not occur in the Tanakh. Since then editor Lisa has deleted half the article (all content and sources related to the Tanakh) 3x. At the same time as this is going on I have had to restore the deletions in order to add sources requested by Jayjg to prove that there is a relation between the phrase in Leviticus and the commentary on the phrase in Leviticus in the Talmud.

Lede as it stands now:'

The idea of a resident foreigner (Hebrew: גר תושב ger "foreigner" + toshav "resident", in rabbinical Judaism refers to a gentile who is a "resident alien", that is, one who lives in a Jewish state and has certain protections under Jewish law, and is considered a righteous gentile (Hebrew: חסיד אומות העולם hassid umot ha-olam "righteous among the nations"). Maimonides uses the term "a stranger-sojourner" in commentary on the term "a stranger-and-sojourner" in Leviticus without the copulative vav (Hebrew וְ "and"). The Hebrew term "a stranger-and-sojourner" (Hebrew: גר ותושב Septuagint πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος), is also a concept found in the Hebrew Bible where it refers to Abraham, Israel and foreigners in Israel, and the concept also occurs in the New Testament and Christian literature, where Abraham's example is applied to life in pagan society.

What exactly is the problem with expanding article content outside of the Rambam to look at Leviticus itself? I cannot understand the reaction being made to transparent WP:RS supported edits? The content seems completely vanilla. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be having a discussion with both editors on the talkpage. There is no need to start another thread here, other than to alert other editors to the discussion. I you think you are in a revert war, it might be best to have the article protected so you can work constructively on a consensus version.

What you are suggesting is that we discuss all instances of the phrase "ger toshav" in the Bible. This is an encyclopedia and not a concordance. It might be relevant if there are secondary sources that link the concept from rabbinical Judaism to the various instances the term occurs in the Biblical text. JFW | T@lk 10:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes the intention is to alert/invite other editors to the discussion. Evidently this is an encyclopedia not a concordance - but since the article is titled in a foreign language, that naturally brings in subjects covered by the foreign language term not by an English article title. And this again speaks to the more general problem of articles where WP:EN may be an issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Need access to Commentary Volume 11 (1951)

Does anyone have access to Commentary? I believe this is a publication of the American Jewish Committee. I am looking for Volume 51 (1951). I found the following snippet via Google Books and would like to know what the context of the snippet is. Specifically, I would like to know how the sentence ends.

"The recent release of a new film by Veit Harlan, the director of Jud Suss, who in three successive trials has been cleared of all charges of collaboration with the Nazis, and the appearance on the Berlin stage of Werner Krauss"

This is the Google Books URL. http://books.google.com/books?id=lZISAAAAIAAJ&q=Harlan+%22Jud+S%C3%BC%C3%9F%22+%22Werner+Krauss%22&dq=Harlan+%22Jud+S%C3%BC%C3%9F%22+%22Werner+Krauss%22&hl=en&ei=5bSxTpfiEMOyiQKbzrDbDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ

I am working on the article about Jud Süß (1940 film) and it seems that this snippet is commenting on the return of some of the participants in that project to the German entertaiment industry. Any help in this regard would be much appreciated.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of the Who is a Jew? article

A discussion has started regarding a proposal to rename the Who is a Jew? article. Interested parties can find it here: Talk:Who is a Jew?#Article should be renamed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

طهارة and טהרה and WP:naming conventions (use English)

Sorry about this, re an edit 40 days ago, so not exactly timely, and I know this subject has come up on here before, but where else would it come up.

• (1) We have not resolved yet whether under WP:EN and WP:NPOV whether WP:RS for articles dealing with practices originating in the Ancient Near East (including Ancient Israel, and with development in the worship of Ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism, and then rabbinical Judaism/Christianity/Islam) should or should not use English terms or Ugaritic/Hebrew/Greek/Latin/Arabic ones. A case in point is this edit where Debresser and I disagree (politely I hope, Debresser has always been very friendly and collegiate with me) about, to put it simply but I hope fairly, whether Google Scholar or Rabbinical commentaries should be used the benchmark to establish what is WP:NPOV English usage in certain articles. Specifically here from Oct 1.
• (2) Note there is an additional problem generated now by the two articles on taharah טהרה "ritual purity" in Hebrew and taharah طهارة "ritual purity" in Arabic which I nominated for page rename to English per WP:naming conventions (use English) now being imbalanced. The Arabic was renamed to English, but the Hebrew was left in Hebrew - which seems a little ... well I guess how it seems will depend on to whom....

Any comments on what WP policy should be applied here? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with article on Ger toshav

The article on Ger toshav has been under a kind of attack in recent weeks, primarily by User:In ictu oculi. This user is engaging in two maneuvers simultaneously. On the one hand, he is attempting to modify the article so that it's about the general concept of gerim and toshavim in Tanakh, and on the other hand, he is then arguing that the title of the article should be changed into English.

I've tried explaining to him that Ger toshav is a halakhic category, but he seems not to understand this. Or perhaps it's that he thinks any midrashic linkage between that category and the phrase גר ותושב in Tanakh means that all uses of that phrase or any similar phrase must be referring to the halakhic Ger toshav.

I've pointed out the difference between the articles on Shabbat and Biblical Sabbath, the one being a Hebrew titled article discussing a halakhic concept and the other being an English titled article discussing a general Biblical concept that, while it is obviously related to the halakhic concept, has an entirely different focus. He simply rejected this point.

I'd appreciate it if I could get some help over in Ger toshav to prevent User:In ictu oculi's continued inappropriate edits. Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisa

Your continued return to delete uses of ger v toshav from the Tanakh and Talmud from the ger toshav reducing the article from 15,464 bytes to 6,139 bytes as here is counter to the WP:RS in the article stating that ger v toshav "a stranger and foreigner" in Leviticus 25 and ger toshav in Talmud passages commenting on Leviticus 25 are related. I raised this in section above. Please see above. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The number of bytes in an article is hardly relevant. You could paste the Declaration of Independence in and make it even longer, but it wouldn't be any more relevant to the subject of the article. I get that you don't understand how halakhic concepts and their biblical antecedents are related. That's okay. There are plenty of people here you can ask to help educate you. The article Gevurah, for example, is connected to the word gevurah as used in the Bible. But that isn't what defines it. If you were to go into that article and start adding all the places where the word, or related forms of it, are used biblically, and discussing what its import is in those cases, and then suggest that the article be renamed to Might or some such, I'd revert those edits as well.

Folks, I'd really appreciate some more help with this. I don't want to be the only person reverting IIO's inappropriate edits, and I don't get the sense that he's planning on stopping any time soon. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisa,

The issue I'm afraid is one of Wikipedia policies:

(1) WP:NPOV - no matter how strongly you may feel that the Tanakh (in this case Leviticus 25) should not be allowed in an article about a term which comments on Leviticus 25, it is not NPOV to constantly delete material related to the Tanakh.

(2) WP:RS - the sources you have deleted (along with 2/3 of the article) explicitly say that ger toshav and ger v toshav in rabbinical materials are commenting on gerim v toshavim in the Tanakh. Unless you can provide WP:RS to contradict these sources, rather than just deleting them, you do not have a case that ger toshav and ger v toshav are unrelated.

(3) WP:EN states that the articles should be named in English anyway, as per the Jewish Encyclopedia, which evidently covers ger toshav and ger v toshav but in English.

(4) WP:POVFORK leads me to understand that to have 2 articles, ger toshav and ger v toshav, as you appear to want, would be meaningless duplication and create 2 unbalanced articles. We cannot easily exclude the Tanakh from material developing from/commenting on the Tanakh without causing a POVFORK.

Do you understand WP policies (1)-(4) above? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few articles tampered with by User:In ictu oculi, (see Mnachem Rizikoff for one), i've found that my attempts to explain halachic terms and titles to him are not receptively met.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, the word "tampered with" implies your WP:OWNERSHIP, which Wikipedia does not recognise. I'm afraid that if someone, anyone, creates a largely WP:OR WP:POV essay style article, full of misspellings, foreign language words, cut and paste duplication, then other editors will come along and "tamper with" (pull towards WP standards) that person's creations, the alternative to editing being a deletion or merge nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, accusations aside, your renaming proposal on Talk:Hromim#Three_duplicate_articles_on_same_Hebrew_word is really ridiculous. I prefer a good Hebrew term to that concocted nonsense translation any day. 06:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Hi Debresser,

Why "accusations aside," do you think I am wrong to defend myself of the charges above?

I still find this sensitivity over WP:naming conventions (use English), and the idea that the English language can be an "attack" or "tampering" quite odd. But I will look on the Talk you have linked to find which English term you consider is not documented in WP:RS. All the best as always. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Having checked Google Books and Google Scholar, the title Marecheth Ho'eElohuth gave to his article hromim does not exist - other than in Croatian as an inflected form of the adjective hromi "lame" - while JPS Tanakh, aka concocted nonsense ;), has "devoted things" as do many commentaries, others have "devoted objects". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Righteous gentile

It seems Righteous gentile redirects to Ger toshav. That is strange, since "ger toshav" is a biblical definition, while "righteous gentile" is a title bestowed also by the state of Israel upon non-Jews who helped Jews, like Oscar Schindler. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see we have Righteous among the Nations for that. I think we should turn Righteous gentile into a disambiguation page. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Please see and improve or comment. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Righteous gentile and Ger toshav are indisputably the same thing. There are good enough sources to keep that statement in the Ger toshav header, but to say they are exactly the same is going too far.Mzk1 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that if you check newspapers and other popular sources, you will find a lot of cites under the spelling herem. It is more important that the average Joe find what he is looking for than satisfying some ivory-tower types who shouldn't be relying on us anyway.Mzk1 (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

New image

I just had to share this fabulous new image with everyone:

Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim

--Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film) nominated for Good Article status

I have nominated the article on Jud Süß (1940 film) for Good Article status. If you are interested in reviewing the article against the criteria for good articles, please follow the instructions at the top of the article's talk page. Only one reviewer is need for this process; however, comments and suggestions for improving the article are always welcome. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on it reaching Good Article status. Magister Scienta^talk 01:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tribe of Dan

This and Denyen attract fringe editors. If you look at Talk:Tribe of Dan you'll see an editor attacking me as anti-Semitic for I'm not sure what, saying the tribe of Dan wasn't in America or dislinking Sunday school sources? "The Tribe of Dan was of ancient Egypt, Dan himself allied with Egyptian princes, their tribe was highly knowledgeable, especially of construction and architecture, and their tribe was the seafaring tribe, so it is not weird to believe all the pyramids in the Americas have some kind of link to Egypt via the ancient Middle Eastern diaspora ultimately of many groups, and possibly the Tribe of Dan themselves; and we're now finding through DNA those links in some of the Americas. The Druze have a high concentration of the X haplogroup and they're still in and around Israel and the region. You're an anti-Semite." (quote from an edit by Wheres Dan (talk · contribs)). Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, he's been banned for a week for edit-warrng. Magister Scienta^talk 01:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Article rating

Hello everybody, I've been doing a considerable amount of work trying to improve Charles W. Engelhard, Jr. from its current C status. I think, at this moment, it's finally a B article. Can somebody please review the article, and if they agree, change its rating. I believe I can't do this because of some COI rule since I'm a major contributor. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:In ictu oculi's disruptive edits

User:In ictu oculi (henceforth: IIO) has been, for some weeks now, engaged in what I can only call a campaign to disrupt articles on Jewish legal topics.

I first noticed IIO's behavior in the article on Ger toshav. This is a concept in Jewish law which applies to non-Jews living in the land of Israel. IIO decided that any reference to ger or toshav in the Bible was therefore to be included in this article, even in cases when they are completely unconnected. So he pulled in Abraham referring to himself in Genesis as a ger v'toshav, and then linked from that to material in the Christian scriptures, and then, because he had changed it from an article about a Jewish legal concept to a general article about a different topic, he wanted to change the article's title to be in English. As you can see from the talk page (which is currently more than half filled with debates on this issue), IIO refuses to stop adding irrelevant edits to this article.

I tried at one point to use the articles on Shabbat and Biblical Sabbath as an example of an article about a Jewish legal concept on the one hand, and a general article about the word in the Bible on the other. So now he has expanded his disruptive edits into those articles as well.

He has engaged in a number of unilateral moves without any discussion whatsoever in talk. Some may be justified, such as the move of Nahash to Serpent (Bible). Others, he has justified with comments such as "reverting move with no discussion", despite the move he refers to having happened in 2009 (!).

He has gone into an article on Shituf, a Jewish legal concept which refers to whether or not certain forms of Christian worship as viewed as idolatrous in Jewish law, and added an utterly irrelevant section on "shituf meal", something which has absolutely nothing to do with the legal concept of shituf.

He has gone into an article on Kareth (roughly: excision), which is also a concept in Jewish law. He did the same thing there that he has tried to do with Ger toshav, changing the article to one about the word in the Bible (with a demand to change the article title to English due any day now) and relegating the actual content of the article to a subsection of "In Judaism".

He has moved the following articles unilaterally:

The status quo Kohen => Recognition of priestly descent
Kil'ayim (prohibition) => Prohibition against crossbreeding
Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah => Engaged in one precept, exempt from another
B'rov am hadrat melech => In multitudes there is glorification of the king
Petter Chamor => Redemption of a donkey

I've moved all of them back pending discussion.

IIO has been absolutely impervious to argument and to requests that he stop. To give him the benefit of the doubt, he may simply not understand how Jewish law works. He has referred to the Talmud a number of times as "a commentary on the Bible". But even if this is the case, he is unwilling to be corrected about it.

I'd appreciate it if we could get some admins to ask him to stop, since he won't listen to anyone else. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an RfC/U for a topic ban on Judaism? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am having the same problem with him at Hromim. And that is in spite of the discussion we had with him here on this WikiProject talkpage, and on the talkpage of that article specifically. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven J. Anderson

Hello. If you want to propose a topic ban it will have to extend to all foreign-language-titled articles, including Arabic (طهارة and טהרה above) not just anglicizing Hebrew. Can I please ask you, have you contributed at any point to Wikifying Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's creations over the last 6 months, for example? Do you want those articles restored to the way they were created? The reason I'm raising this as the most egregious example, and in terms of number of articles and volume the majority of the articles under discussion.

It is possible that there may be perspective differences in play here between a secular and religious approach to these topics but nevertheless, one would hope that the deciding factor should be Wikipedia policies. Do you have a specific edit which you are concerned does not reflect the following Wikipedia policies:

• Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) WP:UE
• Wikipedia:NPOV
• Wikipedia:PSTS
• Wikipedia:Content forking
• any other policy you wish to bring to my attention?

Best regards

WP:HE comes to mind. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lisa

With all respect, you say "IIO refuses to stop adding irrelevant edits to this article." but the last edit I made to the article was 13 Nov when Lisa deleted material mainly relating to the use of the term in the article title in the Tanakh, together will all RS sources. Today is 27 November. That is 2 weeks during which I have been asking you on the Talk page to provide either a WP:RS or a WP policy to justify your deletion of WP:RS concerning ger toshav in Leviticus from the article named ger toshav. You still have failed to provide either to support your deletion (which stands now for 14 days) of copious WP:RS-sourced content. Sorry, but it's the case.

Secondly, you say that those articles which you've moved back to Hebrew (or ungrammatical nonsense-English) were done "without consensus" - but you misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Not every page move requires a full RM. Some, particular where the article title has no support whatsoever in WP:RS (eg Google Book and Google Scholar Advanced Search) can be done by posting comment on the Talk page so that editors watching that article can get involved. Posting sections with WP:EN on the Talk Page is an invitation for editors, which can be anyone, even someone like yourself who has made no contribution to the article, to present your feelings on the Talk page.

1. (Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Recognition of priestly descent to The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)
2. (Move log); 00:53 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Recognition of priestly descent to Talk:The status quo Kohen over redirect (moved without consensus)
3. (Move log); 00:52 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved In multitudes there is glorification of the king to B'rov am hadrat melech over redirect (moved without consensus)
4. (Move log); 00:52 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:In multitudes there is glorification of the king to Talk:B'rov am hadrat melech over redirect (moved without consensus)
5. (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Talk:Engaged in one precept, exempt from another to Talk:Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus)

1. (Move log); 00:51 . . Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ moved Engaged in one precept, exempt from another to Osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah over redirect (move without consensus)

However I'd welcome discussion on these names on the sections on relevant Talk pages, and if anyone can find "The status quo Kohen" in Google Books then they're smarter than me, which is quite possible, but let's see WP:RS not chat. Anyway, now you've moved Talk:The status quo Kohen etc. Lisa, what do you want this article to be called? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumed Kohen or Presumption of Kohen status would probably be good. But it doesn't matter. I wouldn't change it to that without engaging in discussion on the subject in talk. You clearly don't play well with others. I wonder what you're doing here on Wikipedia at all. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Debresser

Hey there, I'm a little bit disappointed with the above. I have always been more than fair haven't I? Including shelving a subject here while you were indisposed recently, remember. As regards the specific article related to "devoted things" I am, am I not, living with the use of the Croatian adjective "lame" hromim as the title of what the JPS Tanakh and all WP:RS have as "devoted things", despite not a single source (other than Croatian books with "lame" in the text) come up on Google Books. I also changed the 2 specific corrections you requested (1) Hebrew Bible adding the POVfork Tanakh, and (2) correcting Sifri to Sifra in one instance. What I have not done that you asked me to do?

As regards the "average Joe ... ivory tower types" point, we'll, you're welcome to your view, but this isn't a great deal more true than "I prefer a good Hebrew term (which was the Croatian adjective) to that concocted nonsense translation (which was JPS Tanakh) any day". The average English-speaking Joe won't know a word of Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Latin, Greek and will be totalled excluded by the use of foreign language terms. This is why Wikipedia has WP:UE. Secondly the Jewish Encyclopedia, JPS Tanakh and all the various Google Scholar and Google Books WP:RS are not all for "ivory tower types", they are simply using - where they use them - English terms, just as a French, Italian or German encyclopedia/Tanakh/ etc would do..... Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, we have always discussed our issues amiably. But we have never reached a solution for the underlying problem, which is that you try to pour into English that which has no English equivalent. And in this I agree with Lisa, being completely in line with and in continuation of the discussions we have had before, here and elsewhere. I agree, that this thread is beginning to show ominous shadows for you, but that seems unavoidable in view of your persistence in doing that which, in my and others' opinion, is not the best thing to do here on Wikipedia. I hope, you will see that in time, because I highly value your contributions. With friendly regards, Debresser (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser,

Yes you have always been very amicable, and I'll hope that you're wrong about "this thread is beginning to show ominous shadows for you." So far it's only Steven J. Anderson who has raised that.

Fundamentally this is a set of WP policy issues. Additional to those mentioned above (WP:PSTS, WP:UE, WP:NPOV) is "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English," according to MOS:COMMONALITY. Whether specific phrases have support in English WP:RS we'll leave to the specific articles. And what I would request is that anyone who has a view on a specific edit please use the Talk pages, since that's what they are there for. That has the advantage of being at first hand to access WP:RS which may have been deleted from relevant article.

I'm not going to be around now for 24 hours, in the meantime folks - make your opinions felt, no holds barred, but on the actual articles please. Best wishes as always. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it makes sense to address the general issue, rather than argue on several talkpages about the same issue. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Debresser,

Well, well you have a point, and you are free to make points here. Go ahead, others go ahead, I'll listen, but as I say I'll be gone for 24 hours. We've had before this exchange here of whether e.g. Artscroll or the Jewish Encyclopedia best represents MOS:COMMONALITY and it didn't get anywhere, but these are page specific edits, page specific issues, related to specific WP policies as applied to specific pages. Since everyone (I hope) accepts the WP policies like WP:UE it should be more productive to do it on the article:

• Talk:Recognition of priestly descent
• Talk:In multitudes there is glorification of the king
• Talk:Engaged in one precept, exempt from another
• Talk:Kil'ayim (prohibition)‎
• Talk:Petter Chamor‎
• Talk:Hromim‎
• Talk:Tzoah Rotachat
• Talk:Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead
• Talk:Beth din shel Kohanim
• Talk:The Torah instruction of the Kohanim
• Talk:The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen

etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My €0.02: these moves should be performed in concordance with the moving policy, with an entry on WP:RM, so the community can offer their input on each discussion. While the naming policy recommends English names, one would need evidence that the concept is actually recognised in that form in English. Some of the articles discussed above have titles that simply do not occur in their English form in English writings. Translating them to force English titles throughout is wrong, puristic, and potentially disruptive - because nobody will be able to find the article except through redirects from their more common Hebrew titles. I am not against running Googlefights to determine whether the Hebrew/Aramaic or English name is in more common usage. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember how to request an IP check. Can someone please point me in the right direction? I suspect User:In ictu oculi may be the perm-banned editor User:Alastair Haines. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! :O

I wasn't expecting that. I guess that explains a lot over the last 4 weeks.

Lisa, if you thought I was a sockpuppet, why on earth didn't you say so earlier, you could have saved yourself and me a lot of grief. It does kind of explain why you've been deleting my edits though. So let me say this once (and here am taking the strictest Bet Shammai approach in this instance of telling absolute truth, no white lie, no fudge, no fingers crossed) I have never edited wikipedia under any other log-in, nor using an IP address. Every edit I have made is under my own log in, in User:ictu oculi, in the blink of an eye, period, full stop. I am not this Alistair Haines, I am not even from Australia. I am also not a Calvinist or Jain (not sure how someone can be both but good luck to them). If you don't like me, don't like me for myself, not for someone else. Thanks :) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the issue here, Mzk1 & Debresser particularly. Hey guys, thanks again for being friendly. Honestly I'm more than happy to accept consensus; I've had my refs and content deleted before, it'll happen again, but I would like the freedom on Talk pages to ask other editors (a) deleting WP:RS, and/or (b) insisting on spellings counter to MOS:COMMONALITY etc. to explain on the Talk page why the cited WP policy doesn't apply in this case. It's not too much to ask. We can actually learn from each other, as I've learnt a couple of things from Jfdwolff for example. I'm not out to "attack" haredi or any other form of belief. And I don't believe the 1911 JE is some kind of עֵגֶּל הַזָהָב everyone has to bow down to. There are cases where more modern WP:RS have moved to use non-English terms, and then that's fine. Cheers :) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one thing I full-heartedly agree with you on. There are many things in the 199 JE articles which I do not like. Not only naming issues, but content issues as well. But that is another mater. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought you were a sockpuppet. It just occurred to me that some of the passive aggressive smarminess was starting to remind me of a certain perm-banned editor. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lisa, I'm not sure that discussing my "passive aggressive smarminess" will progress anything so I choose to pass on that. But please note re. "Is that you, Alastair?" I already replied on Talk:The status quo Kohen. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, thank you for removing that latest comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

He has also changed the content of templates such as Template:Kehuna and Kohanim and Template:Diasporic Kohanic gifts to English translations that are not commonly used. Changing things like "Sdei Achuzah" to "Inherited fields that were dedicated to the Temple and not reclaimed in the Jubilee year" make them unnecessarily long for the title of a future article to be created. There is no need for long article titles like International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, especially in situations like this where the common name is short. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello PiMaster3

Greetings. Perhaps check hits for Sdei Achuzah on Google Books = "0", and so on?

This template is another one of he.wikipedia user Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's well-meaning contributions to en.wikipedia. Yes, as per note on 12 September 2011 (UTC) on Template talk:Kehuna and Kohanim, I discussed and changed Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's romanizations of Hebrew terms to conform to the twenty-four priestly gifts anglicized per a mainstream English WP:RS academic source: Tosefta Hallah in The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Why this, not that? Jacob Neusner p145. I also noted on the Template Talk page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew). Your comment and input there is very welcome. But please bear in mind that per WP:NAVBOX a major purpose of a template is help Wikipedia users navigate around a subject area, and most Wikipedia Users don't read Hebrew, particularly in non-standard romanizations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He did that on another template also. Don't remember which one now. I reverted him. Anyway, this is just the same issue as in the section above. Nothing intrinsically different because it is template namespace. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why he made it a separate section. I didn't make it one when I originally posted this. --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, we have a problem here. And I think that In ictu oculi isn't to be blamed exclusively. Because having an article for talmudic terms like "B'rov am hadrat melech" raises an eyebrow with me also. That shouldn't be an article. Nor should there be article names with such long transliterations. I do have a proposal, but before I make it, I'd like to know whether editors here agree with me, to see whether we agree that there is a problem here. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many articles on Latin legal terms in US law. I don't see why there shouldn't be articles on Hebrew or Aramaic legal terms in Jewish law. --PiMaster3 ^talk 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi PiMaster3. We already discussed this on one of the Talk pages. As before WP:UE and MOS:COMMONALITY applies to Latin as well. Most of the Wikipedia articles where English exists have already been moved to/created under the English. That page you've found is only a vocab list, not a list of actual articles. For example if you click on In terrorem clause it already REDIRECTS to No-contest clause, as it should do per WP:UE.

That leaves a small number of terms where no English exists, and loanwords from French, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic etc. are the only alternative. One quick way of checking whether English exists is to look at the Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971, and see whether the term is in English or Hebrew or both (if both then see WP:UE). For the example above you can check Encyclopedia Judaica to see whether the twenty-four priestly gifts follow Tosefta Hallah in The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism: Why this, not that? Jacob Neusner p145 or the romanizations like Sdei Achuzah made from he.wikipedia. That's all, WP guidelines just ask us that we check with WP:RS rather than websites. But please check for yourself :) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on In Ictu's poor presentation (cherry picking?) of sources supporting his attempted move of B'rov am hadrat melech (see the move request on the discussion page), I recommend that his presentation of sources in all of the other articles he has attempted to move in the same way and for the same reasons be taken with a grain of salt until someone else has had the time to check the sources independently with Google Book Search. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lisa, "cherry picking?" is slightly less than the full-on charge of dishonesty on the Talk page but if I was counting WP:NPA and WP:AGF from yourself against me, the count would now be what? 80? 100? 120? in the last 3 weeks. When have I ever returned tit-for-tat with a personal attack against you? And at what point do you stop prefacing personal attacks in your Talk contributions and address what Wikipedia:Article titles, MOS:COMMONALITY and other Wikipedia guidelines say? In this case:

• The current title romanization gets 1x non WP-mirror Google Books hit. Other alternative romanizations when all the variants are added up will get more.
• The current English proposal gets 2,770 Google Books hits, and likewise other alternative English renditions of Proverbs 14:28 when all the variants are added up will get 1,000s more.

I must also request again that would you please restore the WP:RS source references you have from deleted from articles - among those you've deleted are not just reform Jews but orthodox rabbis, the Talmud, Rashi and the Rambam (in English editions, admittedly). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Or any of the other editors could restore those sources... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Has anyone thought of archiving this disscussion it is quite long. I'll add an archive box, but I would like consent if the project thinks it is a good idea to do so.
Dan653 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The page gets archived automatically when messages are 30 days old, but most messages on the page are newer than that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I saw like two seconds after I added this post. Had to scroll left to see archive box so that's why. Thanks.

Dan653 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, does anybody else here experience this page as really wide? Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 00:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not me. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on merge proposal

On Talk:Jewish_wedding#Merge_proposal I suggested over three months ago that we should merge Erusin and Chuppah into Jewish wedding. Nobody has commented yet, although I know that Mzk1, who has redacted all these articles quite extensively of late, is opposed to this. Nevertheless, I see the Erusin and Chuppah articles basically as content forks of Jewish wedding, and think they should be merged to receive an article giving the full picture. Please comment there. Debresser (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to move Rabbeinu_Tam to Jacob ben Meir

Please see Talk:Rabbeinu_Tam.

In summary, the arguments are that Rabbenu Tam's name is POV and Jacob ben Meir has more Ghits. Presumably the latter is because of the fact that both Jacob and Meir are quite common names and "Rabbeinu" has lots of variant spellings ("Rabbenu", "Rabbeynu" etc). The POV point is well rehearsed at the talk pages of many historical figures: Talk:Alexander the Great includes links in an FAQ to no fewer than nine failed proposals. Finally, there is the more serious point that hefty English language sources tend to call Rabbeinu Tam by his Hebrew name - that needs more expert eyes than mine. --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lashon hara

I made some minor and less minor changes to Lashon hara, as can been seen in this cumulative diff. Please have a look and make improvements, or discuss whatever needs to be discussed.

Lashon hara is the central article on Wikipedia about the three speech-related categories of lashon hara, hotzaat shem ra (/diba), and rekhilut. Even thought from a strict perspective these are three different activities, and prohibitions, I think it is not a bad idea that they are grouped in this article. Foremost, because the term lashon hara is colloquially used to refer to all three of them. In addition, I do not think that we could justify having separate articles about them.

In the light of the discussion above concerning In ictu oculi, I feel I must mention here that my edits also included some reverts and removal of information added by him. Obviously only in so much as I deemed necessary to improve the article. Please feel free to be my judges in this matter. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job on the article but I think it still has a ways to go. I have made some minor edits to the article and, after reviewing your previous comment and the article itself, agree with you that the article should not be split up. I propose that we redirect the pages Rekhilut and Hotzaat shem ra to the article. Thoughts? Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree about redirecting and did that. And thanks for the positive reaction. Debresser (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with putting them together, if only that they involve the same prohibition, derived from the same verse (at least lashon hora and Rechilut) and are generally discussed together, for example in Mishneh Torah.

Another - point. I think there should be mention of the slighly different use of these terms in (Secualar) modern Hebrew, as the prpesed increase in penalty for "loshon horah" in Israel has receieved international attention. There are other terms wchich need this, for example the marriage terms (Erusin, nisuin, Chuppah). Is there some standard way to do this?Mzk1 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that the article should also encompass the points you made up above, don't over think the process. I would suggest just adding a "Modern Use of the Phrase" section to the article and adding the reliable, international attention that you previously said you found. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 21:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Civil_recognition_of_Jewish_divorce#Another_option

This seems like a quick fix, but I'm unsure what exactly needs to be addressed. - RoyBoy 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the whole damn section is unsourced and has had a neutrality tag since 2007. It reads like somebody's speculative original research. It would clearly be within policy to delete the section. Is there any other quick fix you can think of? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless some truly reliable sources are added soon, that section (which was added to the article in December 2005) needs to be deleted. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought half would be deleted with the rest with a reference (that I don't have), deletion is fine. I'll do that now. Thanks! - RoyBoy 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Books of the Old Testament

Template:Books of the Old Testament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Jud Süß (1940 film) is a Featured Article Candidate

Please review the article and leave your comments here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Image at Tallit

Perchance could we change the black-and-white tallit depicted in the photo at Tallit to one that's netural, i.e. blue-and-white or all-white? There isn't really an appropriate alternative at Commons, but I know some editors here are skilled with their digital cameras. While we're at it, why not foreground a tallit that has techelet in it?—Biosketch (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

All colours are already represented? Chesdovi (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't really see them in Israel but in the States the 12-colored tallit is rather popular among the Conservatives. Anyway, would you object, say, to moving the all-white tallit that's lower down up in place of the black-and-white one? I'm not doing it myself because I'm not sure what the Ashkenazi attitude is in relation to the all-white variety. My preference would be to showcase a blue-and-white tallit at the top, which I'm pretty sure is fine by everyone these days, but there isn't a nice enough photo available.—Biosketch (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If this is really an issue, I would only suggest a collage. Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is. Is this picture better? --PiMaster3 ^talk 17:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is nice, but is not better to show a prayer shawl being worn? I see no real problem with the current image? Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The collage proposal is a fine idea. Otherwise, though, yes it's an issue: the image shouldn't favor one tradition over another but rather be all-inclusive to as much an extent as is possible. If the blue-and-white variety is considered universally valid, it should take precedence over the black-and-white variety. Or if the all-white is, then it should. Ideally, the article would represent the black-and-white, blue-and-white, all-white, and 12-colored with equal prominence, which is best effected via the collage, per User:Chesdovi's proposal. Thank you.—Biosketch (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support collage idea with an explanation of the stripes, the colors, and the reasons for different groups choosing different traditions (to the extent such an explanation can be sourced.) Joe407 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a 4 pic collage, but it is unnecessary. Besdies, the Black&White tradition is probably the most worn currently anyway. Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably isn't, but it doesn't matter. Sources establishing that the all-white and black-and-white varieties are the commonest have been added to the article, and the Template:Double image now represents them both with equal prominence per the sources.—Biosketch (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Luria

As promised in this archived post, I split the article about the Arizal in a part about the person, Isaac Luria, and a part about his teachings, Lurianic Kabbalah. Today made a first step towards improving the latter article, which is quite hard to understand for those who are not previously familiar with the concepts of Lurianic Kabbalah. I'd like to invite my fellow editors to help make this article more easily understandable. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Oi, looks like you have your work cut out for you. I'll definitely try to help out but I'm actually pretty busy trying, among other things, to get P:JEW to FP status. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk 15:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Portal

Hello fellow WikiProject Judaism members, after making some edits to Portal:Judaism I really think this WikiProject ought to work on the Portal and try to make it Featured status. Whether through playing with the styles and formatting, rewriting the lead, or whatever, I'm hoping everybody can lend a hand to make our Portal the absolute best it can be. I think that an FA status (and more importantly a high quality, frequently maintained) portal is an important aspect of expanding the coverage of Judaism on Wikipedia. Cheers, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 01:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions perhaps? Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 04:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well don't all shout at once :) Magister Scienta^talk 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to move Twenty-four priestly gifts to Twenty-four Kohanic gifts

In ictu oculi moved The twenty-four Kohanic gifts to Twenty-four priestly gifts without consensus. While I don't think that the title should contain 'the', the rest of the original title still made more sense for the article than what he moved it to. --PiMaster3 ^talk 05:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but without the capital "k". In view of the many contested moves and move proposals by this editor, I think we can do this without much discussion. There is already consensus that "priest" is not an adequate translation of "kohen". Debresser (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I moved it to Twenty-four kohanic gifts. --PiMaster3 ^talk 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And I took care of the redirects. Fixing a few of the other small things I noticed on the way. The state of those articles is deplorable, unfortunately. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody please move Category:Twenty-four priestly gifts to Category:Twenty-four kohanic gifts as well. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The template

Anybody noticed what happened to Template:The twenty-four kohanic gifts of late? I restored it to its former glory and name. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was unilaterally reduced from including all the 24 kohanic gifts to only the 10 that apply in the time of the diaspora, and moved accordingly. I moved it back, after restoring its other two sections, and improved its name from using "24" to "twenty-four". Debresser (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear PiMaster3,

However you may view these things, the move happened 3 months before you started following me, so does not mean it was "without consensus". There was a 17 August to 12 September notice on Talk:Twenty-four_priestly_gifts where the WP policies were noted per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), move noted in advance, and then concluded according to WP:MOVE:

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

What you have done now is a unilateral move based only on the emotional appeal that en.WP policy of using en.sources for en.wikipedia is somehow minuth or "Reform Judaism" or "Christian." The crusade you are on to remove English-as-found-in-academic-sources and replace it with what ? doesn't conform to WP:MOS WP:NPOV WP:article titles etc. etc., and most importantly doesn't produce better encyclopaedic articles.

But please be reassured I'm not reversing it, nor submitting to WP:RM so no need to follow this up with further personal comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor PiMaster3. The previous comment was mine, not his. And it was concerning the template, not the article. And the main point of my comment and my claim that there was an unilateral major change made to it, was about the removal of two groups of non-diasporan gifts and the subsequent rename by Marecheth Ho'eElohuth in May, not about the kohanic/priestly question which you changed in November. :) Debresser (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Debresser, I replied to PiMaster3, to his comment. Enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just reviewed WP:article titles, and it appears to contradict your position. It does not state to use reliable sources as the main determinant, nor are reliable sources restricted to academic ones as you keep on claiming, and certainly not academic ones found by particular search engines.Mzk1 (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Parashah

Hi, I have been working on the Parashah article for several years (about space divisions in the masoretic text of the Bible). It is now way beyond "start" class, so I raised the quality rating to "B". However, it would be good to have other people look at it too and give their feedback. Please comment on the talk page there about the quality rating and what else needs to be done to improve the article. Shabbat Shalom, Dovi (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Great job on the article, but as a major contributor you really should not have changed the page rating, in the future leave that to other editors. To ask for a page to be reassessed please ask here. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk (Editor Review) 17:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably should have realized that, but that general feeling was also why I asked for input from others. Dovi (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a look also. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

On a general note, I miss references and information from HaMikrah VehaMesorah by Reuvein Margolies. For example about the fact that the number of parashot is indicated at the end of the weekly Torah reading in many chumashim. And a small question, shouldn't "parashiyot" be "parshiyot" without that second "a"? Debresser (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, shavua tov and thanks for your corrections. If Margolies has something significant to add, then please put it in with a reference. Perhaps the fact that the data is recorded at the end of the sidra in chumashim will be valuable to someone.

Regarding transliterations, I know this has been endlessly debated in the past and don't know if there was ever any conclusion. I tried to use a form that wouldn't make scholars squirm too much, similar to what is used in the Encyclopedia Judaica. Were the changes you made in translation to conform to some sort of WP standard?

"Parshiyot" may be part of this: Parashiyyot is correct grammatically (never parshiyot) and that is how Israelis naturally say it too when they use that form, but dropping the "a" is common among European Jews. See the endless discussion about these things on the talk page. I am convinced that using "parashot" makes this article a lot less painful for readers and it also avoids this whole issue. Dovi (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have this book. But I read it once. Yes, the spelling corrections are in per WP:HEBREW. The second "a" of "parashiyot" is probably a hataf then? But I don't think the double "y" is correct. There is only one yud there. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a second kamatz (the plural is פָּרָשׁוֹת or פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת according to the Even Shoshan dictionary). There actually are two yods grammatically, i.e. dagesh hazak, but according to WP:HEBREW that becomes irrelevant. Thanks for showing me that. Dovi (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I once heard a reader of the Torah say "goy-yim", where even in Hebrew many would write two "yud"s since the word "goy" has one and the second for the plural. But that is highly uncommon and I'd disagree with such a pronunciation very strongly. Consequently the same for transliterating that word with a double "y". Even the more so in a case where the double "yud" is only a "dagesh". Debresser (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The function of dagesh hazak is to lengthen or "double" the consonant. Many fine readers of the Torah are strict about this, especially in Israel. Many new tikkunim (e.g. Feldheim's Simanim) even have special fonts to indicate the dagesh hazak and help the reader enunciate it. Whether a second yud is actually written is meaningless; that is what is called an em keriah, which has little or no importance in terms of grammar or vocalization. But in any case we'll obviously just use the policy for the article. Dovi (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's somewhat surprising that parashiyyot has a qamatz there under the resh, but R. Alcalay is in agreement with Even Shoshan that that's the case. The word for "Arab women" is listed in Alacalay as עֲרָבִיּוֹת but he also lists as an alt a form with a sheva nah under the resh. It's not clear why the situation shouldn't be identical in the case of parasha. But resh is a funky letter, because it sometimes acts as an ot geronit and other times doesn't. Most Israelis say ערָבים for "Arabs" but ערְביות for "Arab women." In other words, the secondary form has become the more prevalent one in modern-day usage. My guess is the same preference exists for פרְשיות today rather than פרָשיות, in which case a less conservative dictionary like Choueka's Rav-Milim would acknowledge the new form.—Biosketch (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say arAviyot, but par:shiyot. :) As to the resh, you are right. The sefer yetzirah calls it a guttural, but the medieval grammaticists I have seen do not. In the Torah we sometimes see a hataf under the resh, but not always. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You should expand the Resh article with whatever background you're able to add from the Sefer Yetzira and the medieval medakdekim – preferably using secondary sources, of course. I could've sworn there was once a ref in that article to an Israeli linguistics journal where the guttural-v.-alveolar debate was explored in a historical context, but it's not there now and it's it's not at Guttural R either. Interestingly, the debate's become somewhat compounded now because in addition to mizrahim, Russian Israelis, Arabs Israelis, Ethiopians, South American olim, etc. also favor the alveolar variety over the guttural. Consensus among mainstream linguists is that in modern Hebrew, the guttural R is standard, but that's a skewed representation of reality making it seem as though the anemic Hebrew of Yonit Levi is what everyone in Israel speaks.

Getting back to Choueka, Rav-Milim gives two separate lexical entries for פָּרָשָׁה and פַּרְשִׁיָּה and tries to distinguish them semantically as referring to different concepts. For the former, his third definition is,

פסקה קטנה בתנ"ך שבינה לבין סביבתה יש להשאיר רווח מסוים; פסקה בפרשת השבוע הנקראת על-ידי כל אחד מן העולים לתורה בבית הכנסת. (צורת הריבוי הנפוצה: פָּרָשיות.)

He concludes the entry for פרשה with,

[פָּרָשׁוֹת/פָּרָשִיּוֹת; פ.ר.ש.]

At פרשיה, meanwhile, his third definition is,

[צורה אחרת של פרשה משמעות 3.] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)

And he concludes the entry:

[פַּרְשִׁיּוֹת פ.ר.ש.]

So to make a long story short, even with Choueka there still isn't an RS for parshiyyot in the lead, or wherever else editors were debating whether it should go.—Biosketch (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New articles

Just a reminder to everybody. If you list any new Jewish related articles that you have created in the New articles section of this WikiProject more people that might know about the topic will be aware about the article and will be able to contribute to it. It's kind of hard to contribute to an article that you don't know exists. --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite a new article yet, but I'm trying to develop User:Biosketch/Dror Yikra into something substantial. If anyone has access to the commentaries listed there that mention the piyyut (there are others as well), they're invited to expand the section.—Biosketch (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GA for Amon of Judah

		Another Good Article for WikiProject Judaism!
		Amon of Judah has just been awarded GA status! Thanks are due to J Milburn to for reviewing. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mastema

Upon my research of the book of Jubilees, I've for the first time in any scripture I've read come across the reference to Mastema. There may be other sources that I'm not familiar with, so could someone direct me to a source or passage that suggests that Mastema is "perhaps one of those same demons" as of what he claims authority over? Thanks.

Brutalrepublic (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing 'Ultra-Orthodox' to 'Haredi'

I have seen the term 'Ultra-Orthodox' used in many articles on Wikipedia. Considering the offensive nature of the term (and also to avoid redirects) could someone here who knows how to create a bot make one that will automatically changes the term 'Ultra-Orthodox' to 'Haredi'? --PiMaster3 ^talk 03:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about using a bot, but such a change is very easily done using AWB. Once consensus is reached that such a change is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that some people here (and I am not referring to PiMaster3 alone) claim that the term "ultra-orthodox" is offensive. I remember that in the Europe of 20 years ago, "ultra-orthodox" was the only term in use. Moreover, it is an understandable term, meaning "most orthodox", while the term "haredi" is a modern Israeli term, which has been in use only for several decades and has no meaning in any European language.

In view of this, I think we would have to check whether the term "haredi" is being used outside the Jewish press, before we could replace the - in my eyes - neutral and understandable term "ultra-orthodox" with the foreign "haredi". Debresser (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are synonymous. In israel, the term Haradi indicates a level of insularity that I don't think is present in the american communities that term themselves ultra-orthodox. thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "ultra-orthodox" implies excess piety, and could easily be construed as being offensive. Of course this is all relative: some would regard a person as ultra-orthodox while on the other end of the spectrum a different person might regard that same person as very modern. Some press sources will use the appellation "ultra-orthodox" for the modern orthodox or dati le'umi camp, while others will not. I think we should try to use the term that people would use for themselves. Nowadays, that will be haredi in many cases. JFW | T@lk 11:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In Israel, surely. Because "haredi" is a Hebrew word and "ultra-orthodox" isn't. But in Europe and America? Debresser (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The haredi community refers to itself as haredi, not "ultra-orthodox". JFW | T@lk 17:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question. Are you talking about Americans? Debresser (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In the US, the terms "yeshivish" and "chasidish" (as appropriate) are probably used to refer to the Haredi community many more times than "haredi" itself. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with PiMaster3 and JFW ! With all the to and fro over the years in WP Judaism discussions, the general WP:CONSENSUS among the many Judaic editors from all walks has been that over-all, in general, the term "Haredi" is less offensive to all sides and hence it gained acceptability. The term Torah is also more preferable than "Bible" in a truly Judaic context. Somehow, over the years, prior to the WP phenomenon, the term "ultra-Orthodox" had almost exclusive negative connotations and it was not used by the people whom it was meant to "describe" so that when the term "Haredi" or "Charedi" came along it has gained usage and coinage as a more neutral label for its subjects and did not raise complaints the way the term "ultra-Orthodox" did. Let's not upturn the apple cart because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)