![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following change was made; however, I am going to revert it, and explain why. RK
Orthodox Jews really do hold that they exclusively are heir to the received tradition of Jewish theology. They publicly and repeatedly state that all forms of Judaism are heretical or false, with the exception of Orthodoxy. If that doesn't fit the definition of the word exclusive, then nothing does. Many Orthodox groups do not even respect the validity of other Orthodox groups. RK
to outright rejection of modernity as sinful. You have to have a narrow definition of modernity before you will find any Orthodox group who will agree with that statement. Ezra Wax
'Orthodox Judaism is the core of Judaism and is characterized by:'
Seems to me that non-Orthodox Jews might take issue with Orthodox Judaism being identified as the core of the religion. Jdavidb 19:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the last headline should read like that :"Core of Judaism" seems not to be NPOV :-))). Sometimes spellos are more than enlightening (Freud mentioned that..)
Jayjg, why did you remove the sentencs about two groups and label it as a possible "POV" violation? Wikipedia policy has always allowed, and in fact required, articles to differentiate between mainstream groups and minority groups. In an article on American politics, it would be factually incorrect, as well as a POV violation, to present NORMAL, the very tiny fringe political party to legalize marijuana use, as being of equal importance in the role that the Republican and Democrat parties play. Like it or not, NORMAL has failed to make a significant impact in the American political scene; the number of votes they get for their Presidential, Senatorial or Congressional candidates is less than minimal. Most Americans probably don't even know that this group exists. RK
Similarly, we have the same responsibility to accurately present Jewish groups. This article notes the two large Orthodox Jewish groups in North America, the Orthodox Union and its affiliated RCA, and the Agudath Yisrael. It also mentions the smaller group, the National Council of Young Israel. For the sake of completeness, it even mentions two tiny fringe groups that most Jews don't even know exist. Your edit of the article gives no such information; all the context has been deleted. These tiny groups have virtually no public support, let alone knowledge of their existence. Their inclusion on this webpage at all is grossly disproportionate to their size and impact; I added them for comparison, for their curiosity value, and frankly, because I sometimes have OCD in regards to completeness; I like to list every possibility, even the fringe ones. However, to be fair and give an accurate portrayal of Orthodox Judaism, we are obligated to note that these groups are tiny, are widely considered to be religious extremists - even by their fellow Orthodox Jews - and they are also literally unknown to most Jews. Without this infomartion readers of this article would be misled as to their role in the Jewish community. Of course, how this information is presented is important, and I agree with you that we need to present such info in an NPOV fashion. RK 00:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
This line bothers me.
" Orthodoxy can roughly be classified into Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism (Hasidic Judaism is a subgroup within Haredi Judaism)."
Their are many more groups within Orthodox Judaism.
I would argue thier are three main groups.
Modern Orthodox, Centrist Orthodox, Haredi.
That article is far from perfect. Anyway, when I tried to fix one of the more terrible mistakes (Agudat Israel opposed Rabbi Hirsch, when actually his adherents were the party's founders), my edit was reverted. SHASHAZ 09:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does somebody have a better picture than the one of the young men from Meah Shearim? It isn't a particularly flattering picture, and it also seems to me that that gesture might mean that they're not particularly happy about having their picture taken. Actually I think I'll remove the picture, and somebody can put up a better picture if they have one. -- Ezra Wax 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe the recently added picture should be removed. It pictures clothing etc. which is not a requirement of Orthodox Judaism and which reflects only an element of a diverse culture. Either there should be no pictures at all, or there should be pictures which reflect Orthodox Judaism's diversity. -- Shirahadasha 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's back, and I'm removing it again.-- Shirahadasha 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.
— <TALK JNDRLINE TALK> 30 August 2005
BS"D
The opening statement, defining Orthodoxy as the reaction to Reform, is misleading. Not only is this not a central, or even important, principal of Orthodox Judaism, but also most Orthodox Jews would describe themselves as the bearers of traditions greatly predating the advent of Reform Judaism. Most Reform Jews would probably descrive themselves the same way - not as reactants to Orthodoxy. In place of this, the opening paragraph should be a summary of the views which uniquely characterize Orthodox Judaism. These are the divinity of the Written and Oral Law (Torah and Talmud), and the importance of strict adherence to this Law and its interpretation and codification by the Rabbis of the last millenium, the Shulkhan Arukh in particular.
Since a discussion of some of the subgroups of Orthodox Judaism has been included in the introduction till now, it would be beneficial to briefly touch upon the primary issues and debates between these subgroups. The five points I have put forth summarize these issues well.
Hasidic Judaism and Haredi Judaism, while in agreement on many matters, are not really a single subgroup, and should be considered separately. There might be other articles in Wikipedia which should be changed accordingly. Both of these groups dress traditionally, but they do not dress similarly. They also disagree over the importance and centrality of Torah study - both agree it's important, but Haredi Jews typically emphasize it more than Hasidim. Additionally, Haredi Jews typically integrate into non-Jewish society more than their Hasidic counterparts.
Scorpiuss 07:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
BS"D Are you sure you're not referring to Hasidim and Mitnagdim? I thought Chareidi was a term which simply encompassed black-hat-communities, the Agudath Israel fold. yodamace1
Btw, thanks to all of the people who have been editing the Jewish topics on Wikipedia. Thanks in large part to G-d allowing me to encounter Wikipedia, I am now a Baal Teshuvah for...well, something around 2 years now. Also, to the gentleman attempting to categorize Orthodoxy into 3 groups, what is "Centrist Orthodox"? I find that to be a really hard term to describe. Didn't make any edits, just trying to help my fellow Jews out. yodamace1
Thank you. Yeah, I just found out that R. Lamm coined the term...so I guess there aren't "three groups". yodamace1
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The introduction currently contains a list of seven tennents, which seem to be a partly from the 13 principles of the Rambam (Maimonidies), as well as some other stuff that I don't recognize. "The centrality of yeshivas as schools of Talmudic study and learning", for example, isn't something I've ever heard stated by any of the past Gedolim (sages) as a basic principle of faith. Yeshivot (plural for yeshiva) are merely a method for transmitting Judaism to the next generation.
I recommend that this be changed to either the Rambam's principles of faith (the 13 "Ani Ma'amin"'s), or some other list which I can't think of now but has a similar solid foundation within Judaism. To have a bunch of people gather together and define Orthodoxy without either (1) citing where they found it and/or (2) having it come directly from age-old sources seems almost ironic in nature. - eykanal, 5:10 PM EST, Dec 12, 2005
So what defines Orthodox Judaism? What makes it different from the other denominations? This is a very tough question. The Conservatives have voluminous literature in which they claim adherence to the 13 principles, although this will be disputed by the Orthodox. Alternatives are the Albo's three Ikkarim: belief in One God, the Divinity of the Torah and Personal Divine Intervention. Even that is open to interpretation.
In all honesty, I would prefer basing the intro on the Albo, with a source. It may actually be worthwhile pointing out that belief in the eternal authority of halakha is the only true defining characteristic, as Conservatives generally hold that halakha is determined by time-dependent dynamics and can be revoked due to social/political/natural change. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
UK orthodoxy seems to be missing. Could it either be added to this article or a link be made to another?
There is currently a statement, in the characteristics of Orthodox Judaism,
This is a controversial statement and removing it should not be considered vandalism. It does not describe all of Orthodox Judaism. Rambam, the founder of the school combining Orthodox faith with acceptance of scientific rationalism, pointed out that while the Rabbis of the Talmud were gifted halachists these gifts did not extend to all of human knowledge generally, and he described them as giving generally poor advice on medicine, astronomy, etc. Much of Modern Orthodox Judaism follows Rambam on this and accepts things like evolution, regards much of Agaddah and Midrash as legend rather than fact, etc. Moreover its very philosophy is to combine rabbinic and modern outlooks. This statement doesn't accurately describe all of Orthodox Judaism and it shouldn't be included here. It perhaps should be included in the description of Haredi Judaism, which often does not accept the descriptive theory of evolution etc. Shirahadasha
I agree with you Sshirahadasha. Although I'm not Modern Orthodox, there are certainly a number of things that could be corrected on this article. I changed the intro to the article from something that incorrectly indicated that all Orthodox Jews keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. This is simply not true... in fact, I'm under the impression that there are actually very few Orthodox Jews who try to strictly keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. Most Orthodox Jews more or less just use the Shulhhan Arukh as a framework of halakha to work with, but at the same time diverge from it on a number of points, instead following opposing views of any one of its many commentators. The previous intro to Orthodox Judaism also seemed to exclude Baladi
Yemenite Jews,
Dor Daim, ... even many Shami
Yemenite Jews, as well as talmedhei haRambam (a fairly quickly growing community of Jews from various edot who keep halakha according to the
Mishneh Torah)... and not to forget the
Romaniote Jews, who don't/didn't claim to go by Talmud Bavli at all -- over Talmud Yerushalmi -- and although I'm sad to say that this small community is on the brink of termination, I'm aware personally of a non-Romaniote group of Jews here in Jerusalem who have adopted the same approach. Anyone who wants references should just click on the links to the already existing articles related to these various groups
Omedyashar
02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Orthodox Jews maintain that contemporary Orthodox Judaism maintains the same basic philosophy and legalistic framework that existed throughout Jewish history."
The word legalistic, it seems to me, has perjorative connotations and is not a NPOV. It is a term often used to connote adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. While Orthodox Jews adhere to the law, many would take exception to the notion that they do not adhere to its spirit. The term legal would be more neutral than legalistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. F ( talk • contribs) .
Is this link for advertising? Kari Hazzard ( T | C) 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the sentence on contrast with other movements because the intro paragraph to other movements in judaism discusses only the subject movement. However, other movement articles have contrast and/or criticism sections or spin-off articles, and this one doesn't. (the Modern Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism articles have both.) Suggest that such a section (or sections) would be an appropriate addition consistent with the way the rest of the encyclopedia is organized. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there a criticism section? There's an entire page dedicated to criticism of Conservative Judaism - it seems a little unfair that there isn't even a small blurb about it here. Chaiya 04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The authority of the Shulchan Aruch is NOT claimed to be a fundamental tenet of ANY stream of Orthodoxy. The only truly fundamental texts in Orthodoxy are the Torah and Talmud. Any code, including the Shulchan Aruch is subject to scrutiny so as to ascertain its correlation with the Talmud. Claiming otherwise would imply that ARizal and Vilna Gaon are at best not Orthodox, and at worst, heretical. You may wish to argue this logical strain--but it is NEVER argued in Orthodoxy (and never has been by any significant stream or group of authorities). Some may have claimed that a certain person is heretical, but never because it desagreed with the Shulchan Aruch...but because it fundamentally disagreed with the Talmud. In his Introduction to the Chaye Adam, Rabbi Danzig even asserts that the Shulchan Aruch alone has NO authority per se, but that the true accepted codes of reference are the Beith Iosef and Darkhei Moshe, corresponding with the Shulchan Aruch (Caro) and the Mapah (Isserless), respectively. That being said, these works revolve around the Tur (Arbaa Turim), and are actually analytical works attempting to analyze scholarly discussion regarding Talmudic interpretation. Would you then say that the Tur is actually the true authority. NO! The Tur admits defending and borrowing heavily from his father, the Ro"sh, who is one among many Rishonim attempting to elucidate the proper meaning of the Talmud. THAT carries true authority.
The word "developed" was used to refer to the activities of the GAonim, Rishonim etc. I understand the temptation to use this word, however, develop may mean to bring into existence what did not before exist. Orthodoxy can be more appropriately understood if we use only the word "applied". The Torah, written and oral, is seen as a sufficient and coherent source of all understanding and wisdom. The question of whether other sources exist is a different question, and is usually answered in the affirmative. However, the question of whether other sources are reliable, how reliable those sources are, and how one knows which sources they are, are matters of great contention. The job of a Posek is to understand the situation at hand and apply to it the coherent Talmudic system. The wide reliance on preexisting codes is simply so that every Posek need not reinvent the wheel, and may utilize past modes and methods of analysis and application.
I shall adjust the article accordingly unless i hear objections 70.107.120.55Shigaon
It should also be noted that they are not appealing to the Ben Ish Chai's authority but actually to the KAbbalistic authority of the Arizal, who is being interpreted by the Ben Ish Chai. ~~Shigaon
The article states:
A1b2c3d8 ( talk · contribs) changed it to:
While there is disagreement among the reshonim of at what point one becomes a heretic there is almost no argument of the truth of the principles. And while there is some disagreement about the extend of a few of the principles (who wrote the last few verses of the Torah for example) no one orthodox rejects a principle outright. User:A1b2c3d8's edit implies that a minority of orthodoxy believes that some of the 13 principles are not true. There is no such minority. At the same time the 13 principles are not written in stone, there is no serious disagreement in orthodox about their veracity. Jon513 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the book on me, and I don't remember every point that Shapiro made, but as for the example that you mentioned - the Rambam holds that you must believe that every verse of the Torah, down to the letter, was given l'Moshe mi-Sinai -- directly from Hashem. R' Yosef Albo and the Abarbanel (I think) would disagree with that statement, so in that sense, they would reject that principle outright. There are other examples as well, and I could probably dig them up on some JBlog or another with enough time and patience, even without the book.-- DLand TALK 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Wikipedia, in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, has created a template to suggest movement to footnote-style citation throughout Wikipedia. I've added it to this article. Footnote citations should give enough information to enable a non-expert to verify a claim, including edition and page numbers for off-line publications. See WP:CITE for more information. Because verifiers can't realistically go through a large list of books etc. to verify an individual statement, controversial statements which do not have footnote-style citations can still be challenged as unverified until they have a footnote provided for them despite the list of references at the bottom. Best, -- Shirahadasha 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The article states that Hasidic Jews follow The Shulchan Aruch Harav. I only know of one very unique and idiosyncratic (not to mention socially disconnected from all the other Hasidic dynasties) Hasidic group that follows it? Can you name others? Most Hasidic groups are Chaga"s, not Chaba"d and are unlikely to follow it.
I am adding Chabad Lubavitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.131.31 ( talk) 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I edited the last paragraph of the "In Practice" section. It seemed to have been written with a very narrow perspective of Orthodox Jewish "practice". The paragraph mentioned, with no introduction, that (I paraphrase, since I already edited it) "Women never reveal their hair to anyone but their husbands... and orthodox Jews have large families." Both points are inaccurate and slightly out of context. If one were to mention Orthodox practice, I don't think the first thing that would come to mind is women hair covering, or large families. First, many orthodox women do reveal hair. Second, there is no real obligation to cover ones hair inside the home. Also, not all Orthodox Jews have large families, nor is it feasible for all Orthodox Jews to have large families. Also, there is no strict obligation for Orthodox Jews to have large families. Please correct my grammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.246.129 ( talk) 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the photo of "Orthodox Couple on Shabbat": It is very doubtful that an Orthodox couple would voluntarily permit themselves to be photographed on Shabbat. For this reason, I am wondering if this photo represents a privacy violation. Is this different from any other situation where someone is photographed in a context where a person would obviously not wish to be photographed? My concern here is not with legal issues, but with Wikipedia's general approach to privacy. No encyclopedic purpose is served -- we could equally well take a picture of a couple on a Tuesday. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Basic human dignity Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
You may well feel there's nothing undignified about being photographed on Shabbat involuntarily. But why should your values be the ones that control here? Take a closer look and notice how the couple is trying their best to look away from the camera. What feelings do you think their posture and body language are expressing? Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This is such an amazing non-issue; it is incredible that someone would object to labeling the picture as taken on shabbat. What is more germane, in my opinion, is why all the pictures are of hassidim? Could someone not find a picture of a non-hassid and post it? Many many orthodox jews dress in a different manner than hassidm- distinctly jewish, yet clean cut and sophisticated. Perhaps someone could post different pictures. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo in question here does not have any connection to Shabbat. It looks like a Gerrer couple sitting around somewhere. Or perhaps it's another Hasid wearing a fashionable higher and thicker shtreimel. If the guy is wearing a spodik he is a married Ger Hasid (umarried males wear only black hats.) They wear spodiks (and other married Hasidim wear shtreimels) even during the week quite often when they go to weddings or sheva brochas or attend any sort of the plentiful family simchas that they eagerly attend during any day of the week. So there is no way this photo shows or proves it's about Shabbat only, it does not enhance the topic of this article in any way. It should go in the Shtreimel or Spodik articles. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool it guys, let’s give David Shankbone the benefit of the doubt: He most probably took the photo using a “shabbat camera”! Chesdovi ( talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite an exhaustive discussion above regarding this contentious photo, but can we simplify things? The photo may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right to include it here. The photographer admits it was taken with a telephoto lens, so the couple were unaware they were being photographed -- that's sneaky. A couple in Jerusalem can't wait for a bus without having their image taken from afar, and posted on a medium that reaches the world? Are they representative of all Hasidic couples? Maybe not, and maybe they don't want that notoriety. Maybe it was chilly that night, so they had their arms folded. Maybe they were arguing, or maybe they were disgusted the bus was late, maybe they had indigestion. Maybe the image doesn't depict them the way they would want to be depicted. There are just too many maybe's.
This image does not contribute significantly to the article and the article will stand fine in its absence.
(Content removed by admin per WP:NPA)
Remove this contentious and unnecessary photo without any reservation whatsoever.
-- 72.68.28.50 ( talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the complaints of the IP perplexing, both the COI complaint (which was strange to say the least) and the complaint about this photo. There were two photos in a series. This is the second. The one on the page was taken first, and this one was taken second. I think they are nice, attractive couple out waiting for friends. It's nice to also be able to see that not all orthodox are men - the photos on Hasidic Judaism give the impression only men follow the faith. I think both photos are nice - thank you for the compliment Alan. My only question was whether I wanted the man or the woman facing the camera, and my choice is clear. --David Shankbone 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If this were in fact an issue of basic human dignity, we would be advised (but not absolutely required) to follow that element of the BLP policy. I don't believe it is, however - in my mind basic dignity would need to be construed extraordinarily broadly in order to include being photographed in a public place near a tourist magnet. In all likelihood they will never be aware of the photograph and no one who knows them will see it. Even if that is not the case forever we can certainly remove it or discuss removing it again based on a request that provides incontrovertible evidence of their wishes. In the event we receive such a request we would still be under no obligation to remove the photo. Avruch talk 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammed is notable and long dead figure, but WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has specific language on non-notable living persons like the couple involved here requiring much greater protection of their privacy than is the case for people who are notable/dead. That language was recently strengthened by community consensus as a result of the discussion that took place here. I posted on WP:ANI to prevent this discussion from being disrupted by user behavior, not to stop it. It may well be that we simply don't know what this couple might think of this unless they tell us, and perhaps shouldn't presume or take action one way or the other. The intention is to be respectful, but not over-protective. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
May want to change the caption on the photo to say something like "Chassidic couple in Jerusalem on Friday before Shabbat." Bstone ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This does change things. The original concern was that a Hassidic couple might be uncomfortable being photographed on Shabbat and having the photograph displayed publicly. I think after considerable discussion, including comments by Orthodox Jewish editors, the general sense was that such an concern shouldn't be presumed -- a Chassidic couple wouldn't necessarily think the matter a big deal; some people in such a community might have a problem, but not everybody. I think a general concern about any photography of private individuals is outside the intended scope of the presumption of privacy and would be far-reaching enough that it ought to be agreed to explicitly rather than inferred from very general language. I supported the much more limited approach that a specific objection is needed, but the objection should be from the point of view of the subject and could arise from the subject's own community and mores. I think from recent discussions on and changes to WP:BLP, the sense seems to be that non-notable people should be allowed to object to material about them relatively freely, but we should let them object and not be over-sensitive in the absence of an objection. This is clearly an evolving area. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that guy I think. Isn't that a banned user, David something? He had a thread on ANI just this week or last. Lawrence § t/ e 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem for a while from 1999-2001 while studying in yeshiva. I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert on international law. However, there are laws in Israel which protect holy places on the Sabbath and have explicit laws prohibiting use of electrical items when not an emergency. There are signs in Hebrew, English and Arabic saying such. While I don't know the exact location of the photo and it's difficult to say from the photo itself, the photographer has stated it was taken on Shabbat. As such, there may be a conflict with Israeli law. There may not. I don't know. I don't know how wikipedia deals with laws in foreign countries which say content on the project is illegal. Please don't shoot the messenger. Bstone ( talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just asked a friend who is an Israeli attorney. He says to the best of his knowledge this is legal despite the poor taste and cites a few Supreme Court. Do not take this as legal advice, however. Bstone ( talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
About the photo:
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To make the photo look a bit better, I did some cropping, airbrushing, and adjustment of the various properties of the photo.
The stuff I did:
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's OK, because magazines, newspapers, and probably even Britannica, regularly airbrush pictures to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Also, I didn't adjust the brightness, contrast, colors, etc., on my own, arbitrarily. I clicked "auto-adjust" on photoshop, it popped that out, and yeah, I thought it looks nicer and more real. But others might disagree.
I got rid of the plastic cup because I thought, in some subtle poetic way, it made the Jewish man look bad. I mean, both of them are just staring off into the distance and there's a piece of garbage in the front of them that they're totally oblivious to.
As for airbrushing the eyes, I just wanted to make her look a bit more beautiful, which is a good thing, I think. I was sure, though, to be sensitive about it. I had initially considered giving her rosier cheeks and\or coloring her lips, but then I realized it make look unnatural, and then we'd have somebody on here saying, "It looks like she's wearing make-up! Make-up is against halakha! This is an insult to my religion!!" So, I just lightly airbrushed the shadows under her eyes and the wrinkles in her cheeks. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An article on Orthodox Judaism with no treatment of mikvah and taharat mishpachah?? Okay, okay, I know I could just jump right in and do it myself, and maybe I will. I'm just amazed at the energy that went into the photo thing, when there are obviously more important issues to work on here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing this page off my watch list because I'm tired of the illogical arguments raised on it. But I think it's funny that Gilabrand removed my photo from the lead with the note "This couple belongs to a certain Hasidic community - not THE representative of Orthodox Jewry, and hence inappropriate as the opening picture" but then Gila inserts his/her own photo of a blurry rabbi's ear as "THE representative of Orthodox Jewry" at the top of the article. Whatever. I'm taking this page off my watch list. --David Shankbone 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the contentious photo of the Hasidic couple will soon be deleted. One of the persons in the photo has submitted a request that it be deleted, discussion seen here: [2]. Of course, the author David Miller, alias David Shankbone, swooped down and demanded that it be restored: [3]. The matter is still in process, being monitored by an Admin: [4]. An editor has put this all in prespective -- view by navigating to the text with green background here: [5].
-- 71.127.229.128 ( talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am asking Commons:User:Nick, the Wikimedia Commons administrator processing the request, to confirm whether the David Shankbone photo involved in the Wikimedia Foundation request was the same as the one here, before taking further action. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As this issue has now been taken out of our hands, perhaps everyone could work towards improving the article? I note that this article does not have ONE citation or reference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it, how when there's a chance for controversy everyone wants to pitch in, but when article improvement begins, suddenly find they have to be elsewhere? Shame on you.
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
14:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
hameiven yuvin- i understand the anonymous editor's comment. to be exact, Dev920 reads the editorials and more specifically the letters to the editor......."shame on you" 128.235.173.102 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
Which photo is more appropriate for the top of the article? Gilabrand's picture of a rabbi from behind, or this one which allows you to see the person, who happily represents the majority of Orthodox people? Sorry for the sarcasm, but we seem to have rolled from one dispute into another one, and I'm getting tired of it. I don't give a damn about this photo in particular, I just want a more representative one that a fuzzy depiction of a rabbi's ear. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's true that Emunah is commonly translated as "belief" or "faith", the source that was cited is correct in stating that this is a mistake. It derives from the noun "emet", or "truth", and means an assertion of something being true. - LisaLiel ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture of Rav Moshe Lichtenstein is better suited for Modern Orthodox Judaism, as he is specifically referenced as such and that article had no lead image. I placed it there, and substituted the picture of Rav Moshe who as the unarged posek hador better reflects all facets of Orthodox Jewry: Modern, Yeshivish/Haredi, Litvish (non-yeshivish), Hasidic, Sefardic, Oberland, etc. -- Avi ( talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
i agree. rov moshe feinstein is for sure more representative of "orthodox jewry" than an unknown modern orthodox rabbi. 68.50.99.248 ( talk) 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)jonah
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following change was made; however, I am going to revert it, and explain why. RK
Orthodox Jews really do hold that they exclusively are heir to the received tradition of Jewish theology. They publicly and repeatedly state that all forms of Judaism are heretical or false, with the exception of Orthodoxy. If that doesn't fit the definition of the word exclusive, then nothing does. Many Orthodox groups do not even respect the validity of other Orthodox groups. RK
to outright rejection of modernity as sinful. You have to have a narrow definition of modernity before you will find any Orthodox group who will agree with that statement. Ezra Wax
'Orthodox Judaism is the core of Judaism and is characterized by:'
Seems to me that non-Orthodox Jews might take issue with Orthodox Judaism being identified as the core of the religion. Jdavidb 19:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the last headline should read like that :"Core of Judaism" seems not to be NPOV :-))). Sometimes spellos are more than enlightening (Freud mentioned that..)
Jayjg, why did you remove the sentencs about two groups and label it as a possible "POV" violation? Wikipedia policy has always allowed, and in fact required, articles to differentiate between mainstream groups and minority groups. In an article on American politics, it would be factually incorrect, as well as a POV violation, to present NORMAL, the very tiny fringe political party to legalize marijuana use, as being of equal importance in the role that the Republican and Democrat parties play. Like it or not, NORMAL has failed to make a significant impact in the American political scene; the number of votes they get for their Presidential, Senatorial or Congressional candidates is less than minimal. Most Americans probably don't even know that this group exists. RK
Similarly, we have the same responsibility to accurately present Jewish groups. This article notes the two large Orthodox Jewish groups in North America, the Orthodox Union and its affiliated RCA, and the Agudath Yisrael. It also mentions the smaller group, the National Council of Young Israel. For the sake of completeness, it even mentions two tiny fringe groups that most Jews don't even know exist. Your edit of the article gives no such information; all the context has been deleted. These tiny groups have virtually no public support, let alone knowledge of their existence. Their inclusion on this webpage at all is grossly disproportionate to their size and impact; I added them for comparison, for their curiosity value, and frankly, because I sometimes have OCD in regards to completeness; I like to list every possibility, even the fringe ones. However, to be fair and give an accurate portrayal of Orthodox Judaism, we are obligated to note that these groups are tiny, are widely considered to be religious extremists - even by their fellow Orthodox Jews - and they are also literally unknown to most Jews. Without this infomartion readers of this article would be misled as to their role in the Jewish community. Of course, how this information is presented is important, and I agree with you that we need to present such info in an NPOV fashion. RK 00:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
This line bothers me.
" Orthodoxy can roughly be classified into Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism (Hasidic Judaism is a subgroup within Haredi Judaism)."
Their are many more groups within Orthodox Judaism.
I would argue thier are three main groups.
Modern Orthodox, Centrist Orthodox, Haredi.
That article is far from perfect. Anyway, when I tried to fix one of the more terrible mistakes (Agudat Israel opposed Rabbi Hirsch, when actually his adherents were the party's founders), my edit was reverted. SHASHAZ 09:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Does somebody have a better picture than the one of the young men from Meah Shearim? It isn't a particularly flattering picture, and it also seems to me that that gesture might mean that they're not particularly happy about having their picture taken. Actually I think I'll remove the picture, and somebody can put up a better picture if they have one. -- Ezra Wax 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe the recently added picture should be removed. It pictures clothing etc. which is not a requirement of Orthodox Judaism and which reflects only an element of a diverse culture. Either there should be no pictures at all, or there should be pictures which reflect Orthodox Judaism's diversity. -- Shirahadasha 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's back, and I'm removing it again.-- Shirahadasha 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.
— <TALK JNDRLINE TALK> 30 August 2005
BS"D
The opening statement, defining Orthodoxy as the reaction to Reform, is misleading. Not only is this not a central, or even important, principal of Orthodox Judaism, but also most Orthodox Jews would describe themselves as the bearers of traditions greatly predating the advent of Reform Judaism. Most Reform Jews would probably descrive themselves the same way - not as reactants to Orthodoxy. In place of this, the opening paragraph should be a summary of the views which uniquely characterize Orthodox Judaism. These are the divinity of the Written and Oral Law (Torah and Talmud), and the importance of strict adherence to this Law and its interpretation and codification by the Rabbis of the last millenium, the Shulkhan Arukh in particular.
Since a discussion of some of the subgroups of Orthodox Judaism has been included in the introduction till now, it would be beneficial to briefly touch upon the primary issues and debates between these subgroups. The five points I have put forth summarize these issues well.
Hasidic Judaism and Haredi Judaism, while in agreement on many matters, are not really a single subgroup, and should be considered separately. There might be other articles in Wikipedia which should be changed accordingly. Both of these groups dress traditionally, but they do not dress similarly. They also disagree over the importance and centrality of Torah study - both agree it's important, but Haredi Jews typically emphasize it more than Hasidim. Additionally, Haredi Jews typically integrate into non-Jewish society more than their Hasidic counterparts.
Scorpiuss 07:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
BS"D Are you sure you're not referring to Hasidim and Mitnagdim? I thought Chareidi was a term which simply encompassed black-hat-communities, the Agudath Israel fold. yodamace1
Btw, thanks to all of the people who have been editing the Jewish topics on Wikipedia. Thanks in large part to G-d allowing me to encounter Wikipedia, I am now a Baal Teshuvah for...well, something around 2 years now. Also, to the gentleman attempting to categorize Orthodoxy into 3 groups, what is "Centrist Orthodox"? I find that to be a really hard term to describe. Didn't make any edits, just trying to help my fellow Jews out. yodamace1
Thank you. Yeah, I just found out that R. Lamm coined the term...so I guess there aren't "three groups". yodamace1
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The introduction currently contains a list of seven tennents, which seem to be a partly from the 13 principles of the Rambam (Maimonidies), as well as some other stuff that I don't recognize. "The centrality of yeshivas as schools of Talmudic study and learning", for example, isn't something I've ever heard stated by any of the past Gedolim (sages) as a basic principle of faith. Yeshivot (plural for yeshiva) are merely a method for transmitting Judaism to the next generation.
I recommend that this be changed to either the Rambam's principles of faith (the 13 "Ani Ma'amin"'s), or some other list which I can't think of now but has a similar solid foundation within Judaism. To have a bunch of people gather together and define Orthodoxy without either (1) citing where they found it and/or (2) having it come directly from age-old sources seems almost ironic in nature. - eykanal, 5:10 PM EST, Dec 12, 2005
So what defines Orthodox Judaism? What makes it different from the other denominations? This is a very tough question. The Conservatives have voluminous literature in which they claim adherence to the 13 principles, although this will be disputed by the Orthodox. Alternatives are the Albo's three Ikkarim: belief in One God, the Divinity of the Torah and Personal Divine Intervention. Even that is open to interpretation.
In all honesty, I would prefer basing the intro on the Albo, with a source. It may actually be worthwhile pointing out that belief in the eternal authority of halakha is the only true defining characteristic, as Conservatives generally hold that halakha is determined by time-dependent dynamics and can be revoked due to social/political/natural change. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
UK orthodoxy seems to be missing. Could it either be added to this article or a link be made to another?
There is currently a statement, in the characteristics of Orthodox Judaism,
This is a controversial statement and removing it should not be considered vandalism. It does not describe all of Orthodox Judaism. Rambam, the founder of the school combining Orthodox faith with acceptance of scientific rationalism, pointed out that while the Rabbis of the Talmud were gifted halachists these gifts did not extend to all of human knowledge generally, and he described them as giving generally poor advice on medicine, astronomy, etc. Much of Modern Orthodox Judaism follows Rambam on this and accepts things like evolution, regards much of Agaddah and Midrash as legend rather than fact, etc. Moreover its very philosophy is to combine rabbinic and modern outlooks. This statement doesn't accurately describe all of Orthodox Judaism and it shouldn't be included here. It perhaps should be included in the description of Haredi Judaism, which often does not accept the descriptive theory of evolution etc. Shirahadasha
I agree with you Sshirahadasha. Although I'm not Modern Orthodox, there are certainly a number of things that could be corrected on this article. I changed the intro to the article from something that incorrectly indicated that all Orthodox Jews keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. This is simply not true... in fact, I'm under the impression that there are actually very few Orthodox Jews who try to strictly keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. Most Orthodox Jews more or less just use the Shulhhan Arukh as a framework of halakha to work with, but at the same time diverge from it on a number of points, instead following opposing views of any one of its many commentators. The previous intro to Orthodox Judaism also seemed to exclude Baladi
Yemenite Jews,
Dor Daim, ... even many Shami
Yemenite Jews, as well as talmedhei haRambam (a fairly quickly growing community of Jews from various edot who keep halakha according to the
Mishneh Torah)... and not to forget the
Romaniote Jews, who don't/didn't claim to go by Talmud Bavli at all -- over Talmud Yerushalmi -- and although I'm sad to say that this small community is on the brink of termination, I'm aware personally of a non-Romaniote group of Jews here in Jerusalem who have adopted the same approach. Anyone who wants references should just click on the links to the already existing articles related to these various groups
Omedyashar
02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states "Orthodox Jews maintain that contemporary Orthodox Judaism maintains the same basic philosophy and legalistic framework that existed throughout Jewish history."
The word legalistic, it seems to me, has perjorative connotations and is not a NPOV. It is a term often used to connote adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. While Orthodox Jews adhere to the law, many would take exception to the notion that they do not adhere to its spirit. The term legal would be more neutral than legalistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. F ( talk • contribs) .
Is this link for advertising? Kari Hazzard ( T | C) 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed the sentence on contrast with other movements because the intro paragraph to other movements in judaism discusses only the subject movement. However, other movement articles have contrast and/or criticism sections or spin-off articles, and this one doesn't. (the Modern Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism articles have both.) Suggest that such a section (or sections) would be an appropriate addition consistent with the way the rest of the encyclopedia is organized. Best, -- Shirahadasha 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there a criticism section? There's an entire page dedicated to criticism of Conservative Judaism - it seems a little unfair that there isn't even a small blurb about it here. Chaiya 04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The authority of the Shulchan Aruch is NOT claimed to be a fundamental tenet of ANY stream of Orthodoxy. The only truly fundamental texts in Orthodoxy are the Torah and Talmud. Any code, including the Shulchan Aruch is subject to scrutiny so as to ascertain its correlation with the Talmud. Claiming otherwise would imply that ARizal and Vilna Gaon are at best not Orthodox, and at worst, heretical. You may wish to argue this logical strain--but it is NEVER argued in Orthodoxy (and never has been by any significant stream or group of authorities). Some may have claimed that a certain person is heretical, but never because it desagreed with the Shulchan Aruch...but because it fundamentally disagreed with the Talmud. In his Introduction to the Chaye Adam, Rabbi Danzig even asserts that the Shulchan Aruch alone has NO authority per se, but that the true accepted codes of reference are the Beith Iosef and Darkhei Moshe, corresponding with the Shulchan Aruch (Caro) and the Mapah (Isserless), respectively. That being said, these works revolve around the Tur (Arbaa Turim), and are actually analytical works attempting to analyze scholarly discussion regarding Talmudic interpretation. Would you then say that the Tur is actually the true authority. NO! The Tur admits defending and borrowing heavily from his father, the Ro"sh, who is one among many Rishonim attempting to elucidate the proper meaning of the Talmud. THAT carries true authority.
The word "developed" was used to refer to the activities of the GAonim, Rishonim etc. I understand the temptation to use this word, however, develop may mean to bring into existence what did not before exist. Orthodoxy can be more appropriately understood if we use only the word "applied". The Torah, written and oral, is seen as a sufficient and coherent source of all understanding and wisdom. The question of whether other sources exist is a different question, and is usually answered in the affirmative. However, the question of whether other sources are reliable, how reliable those sources are, and how one knows which sources they are, are matters of great contention. The job of a Posek is to understand the situation at hand and apply to it the coherent Talmudic system. The wide reliance on preexisting codes is simply so that every Posek need not reinvent the wheel, and may utilize past modes and methods of analysis and application.
I shall adjust the article accordingly unless i hear objections 70.107.120.55Shigaon
It should also be noted that they are not appealing to the Ben Ish Chai's authority but actually to the KAbbalistic authority of the Arizal, who is being interpreted by the Ben Ish Chai. ~~Shigaon
The article states:
A1b2c3d8 ( talk · contribs) changed it to:
While there is disagreement among the reshonim of at what point one becomes a heretic there is almost no argument of the truth of the principles. And while there is some disagreement about the extend of a few of the principles (who wrote the last few verses of the Torah for example) no one orthodox rejects a principle outright. User:A1b2c3d8's edit implies that a minority of orthodoxy believes that some of the 13 principles are not true. There is no such minority. At the same time the 13 principles are not written in stone, there is no serious disagreement in orthodox about their veracity. Jon513 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the book on me, and I don't remember every point that Shapiro made, but as for the example that you mentioned - the Rambam holds that you must believe that every verse of the Torah, down to the letter, was given l'Moshe mi-Sinai -- directly from Hashem. R' Yosef Albo and the Abarbanel (I think) would disagree with that statement, so in that sense, they would reject that principle outright. There are other examples as well, and I could probably dig them up on some JBlog or another with enough time and patience, even without the book.-- DLand TALK 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Wikipedia, in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, has created a template to suggest movement to footnote-style citation throughout Wikipedia. I've added it to this article. Footnote citations should give enough information to enable a non-expert to verify a claim, including edition and page numbers for off-line publications. See WP:CITE for more information. Because verifiers can't realistically go through a large list of books etc. to verify an individual statement, controversial statements which do not have footnote-style citations can still be challenged as unverified until they have a footnote provided for them despite the list of references at the bottom. Best, -- Shirahadasha 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The article states that Hasidic Jews follow The Shulchan Aruch Harav. I only know of one very unique and idiosyncratic (not to mention socially disconnected from all the other Hasidic dynasties) Hasidic group that follows it? Can you name others? Most Hasidic groups are Chaga"s, not Chaba"d and are unlikely to follow it.
I am adding Chabad Lubavitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.131.31 ( talk) 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I edited the last paragraph of the "In Practice" section. It seemed to have been written with a very narrow perspective of Orthodox Jewish "practice". The paragraph mentioned, with no introduction, that (I paraphrase, since I already edited it) "Women never reveal their hair to anyone but their husbands... and orthodox Jews have large families." Both points are inaccurate and slightly out of context. If one were to mention Orthodox practice, I don't think the first thing that would come to mind is women hair covering, or large families. First, many orthodox women do reveal hair. Second, there is no real obligation to cover ones hair inside the home. Also, not all Orthodox Jews have large families, nor is it feasible for all Orthodox Jews to have large families. Also, there is no strict obligation for Orthodox Jews to have large families. Please correct my grammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.246.129 ( talk) 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the photo of "Orthodox Couple on Shabbat": It is very doubtful that an Orthodox couple would voluntarily permit themselves to be photographed on Shabbat. For this reason, I am wondering if this photo represents a privacy violation. Is this different from any other situation where someone is photographed in a context where a person would obviously not wish to be photographed? My concern here is not with legal issues, but with Wikipedia's general approach to privacy. No encyclopedic purpose is served -- we could equally well take a picture of a couple on a Tuesday. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Basic human dignity Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
You may well feel there's nothing undignified about being photographed on Shabbat involuntarily. But why should your values be the ones that control here? Take a closer look and notice how the couple is trying their best to look away from the camera. What feelings do you think their posture and body language are expressing? Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This is such an amazing non-issue; it is incredible that someone would object to labeling the picture as taken on shabbat. What is more germane, in my opinion, is why all the pictures are of hassidim? Could someone not find a picture of a non-hassid and post it? Many many orthodox jews dress in a different manner than hassidm- distinctly jewish, yet clean cut and sophisticated. Perhaps someone could post different pictures. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The photo in question here does not have any connection to Shabbat. It looks like a Gerrer couple sitting around somewhere. Or perhaps it's another Hasid wearing a fashionable higher and thicker shtreimel. If the guy is wearing a spodik he is a married Ger Hasid (umarried males wear only black hats.) They wear spodiks (and other married Hasidim wear shtreimels) even during the week quite often when they go to weddings or sheva brochas or attend any sort of the plentiful family simchas that they eagerly attend during any day of the week. So there is no way this photo shows or proves it's about Shabbat only, it does not enhance the topic of this article in any way. It should go in the Shtreimel or Spodik articles. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool it guys, let’s give David Shankbone the benefit of the doubt: He most probably took the photo using a “shabbat camera”! Chesdovi ( talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite an exhaustive discussion above regarding this contentious photo, but can we simplify things? The photo may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right to include it here. The photographer admits it was taken with a telephoto lens, so the couple were unaware they were being photographed -- that's sneaky. A couple in Jerusalem can't wait for a bus without having their image taken from afar, and posted on a medium that reaches the world? Are they representative of all Hasidic couples? Maybe not, and maybe they don't want that notoriety. Maybe it was chilly that night, so they had their arms folded. Maybe they were arguing, or maybe they were disgusted the bus was late, maybe they had indigestion. Maybe the image doesn't depict them the way they would want to be depicted. There are just too many maybe's.
This image does not contribute significantly to the article and the article will stand fine in its absence.
(Content removed by admin per WP:NPA)
Remove this contentious and unnecessary photo without any reservation whatsoever.
-- 72.68.28.50 ( talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the complaints of the IP perplexing, both the COI complaint (which was strange to say the least) and the complaint about this photo. There were two photos in a series. This is the second. The one on the page was taken first, and this one was taken second. I think they are nice, attractive couple out waiting for friends. It's nice to also be able to see that not all orthodox are men - the photos on Hasidic Judaism give the impression only men follow the faith. I think both photos are nice - thank you for the compliment Alan. My only question was whether I wanted the man or the woman facing the camera, and my choice is clear. --David Shankbone 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have semi-protected the article. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If this were in fact an issue of basic human dignity, we would be advised (but not absolutely required) to follow that element of the BLP policy. I don't believe it is, however - in my mind basic dignity would need to be construed extraordinarily broadly in order to include being photographed in a public place near a tourist magnet. In all likelihood they will never be aware of the photograph and no one who knows them will see it. Even if that is not the case forever we can certainly remove it or discuss removing it again based on a request that provides incontrovertible evidence of their wishes. In the event we receive such a request we would still be under no obligation to remove the photo. Avruch talk 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Muhammed is notable and long dead figure, but WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has specific language on non-notable living persons like the couple involved here requiring much greater protection of their privacy than is the case for people who are notable/dead. That language was recently strengthened by community consensus as a result of the discussion that took place here. I posted on WP:ANI to prevent this discussion from being disrupted by user behavior, not to stop it. It may well be that we simply don't know what this couple might think of this unless they tell us, and perhaps shouldn't presume or take action one way or the other. The intention is to be respectful, but not over-protective. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
May want to change the caption on the photo to say something like "Chassidic couple in Jerusalem on Friday before Shabbat." Bstone ( talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This does change things. The original concern was that a Hassidic couple might be uncomfortable being photographed on Shabbat and having the photograph displayed publicly. I think after considerable discussion, including comments by Orthodox Jewish editors, the general sense was that such an concern shouldn't be presumed -- a Chassidic couple wouldn't necessarily think the matter a big deal; some people in such a community might have a problem, but not everybody. I think a general concern about any photography of private individuals is outside the intended scope of the presumption of privacy and would be far-reaching enough that it ought to be agreed to explicitly rather than inferred from very general language. I supported the much more limited approach that a specific objection is needed, but the objection should be from the point of view of the subject and could arise from the subject's own community and mores. I think from recent discussions on and changes to WP:BLP, the sense seems to be that non-notable people should be allowed to object to material about them relatively freely, but we should let them object and not be over-sensitive in the absence of an objection. This is clearly an evolving area. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I recognize that guy I think. Isn't that a banned user, David something? He had a thread on ANI just this week or last. Lawrence § t/ e 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem for a while from 1999-2001 while studying in yeshiva. I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert on international law. However, there are laws in Israel which protect holy places on the Sabbath and have explicit laws prohibiting use of electrical items when not an emergency. There are signs in Hebrew, English and Arabic saying such. While I don't know the exact location of the photo and it's difficult to say from the photo itself, the photographer has stated it was taken on Shabbat. As such, there may be a conflict with Israeli law. There may not. I don't know. I don't know how wikipedia deals with laws in foreign countries which say content on the project is illegal. Please don't shoot the messenger. Bstone ( talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just asked a friend who is an Israeli attorney. He says to the best of his knowledge this is legal despite the poor taste and cites a few Supreme Court. Do not take this as legal advice, however. Bstone ( talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
About the photo:
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To make the photo look a bit better, I did some cropping, airbrushing, and adjustment of the various properties of the photo.
The stuff I did:
☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's OK, because magazines, newspapers, and probably even Britannica, regularly airbrush pictures to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Also, I didn't adjust the brightness, contrast, colors, etc., on my own, arbitrarily. I clicked "auto-adjust" on photoshop, it popped that out, and yeah, I thought it looks nicer and more real. But others might disagree.
I got rid of the plastic cup because I thought, in some subtle poetic way, it made the Jewish man look bad. I mean, both of them are just staring off into the distance and there's a piece of garbage in the front of them that they're totally oblivious to.
As for airbrushing the eyes, I just wanted to make her look a bit more beautiful, which is a good thing, I think. I was sure, though, to be sensitive about it. I had initially considered giving her rosier cheeks and\or coloring her lips, but then I realized it make look unnatural, and then we'd have somebody on here saying, "It looks like she's wearing make-up! Make-up is against halakha! This is an insult to my religion!!" So, I just lightly airbrushed the shadows under her eyes and the wrinkles in her cheeks. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An article on Orthodox Judaism with no treatment of mikvah and taharat mishpachah?? Okay, okay, I know I could just jump right in and do it myself, and maybe I will. I'm just amazed at the energy that went into the photo thing, when there are obviously more important issues to work on here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing this page off my watch list because I'm tired of the illogical arguments raised on it. But I think it's funny that Gilabrand removed my photo from the lead with the note "This couple belongs to a certain Hasidic community - not THE representative of Orthodox Jewry, and hence inappropriate as the opening picture" but then Gila inserts his/her own photo of a blurry rabbi's ear as "THE representative of Orthodox Jewry" at the top of the article. Whatever. I'm taking this page off my watch list. --David Shankbone 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the contentious photo of the Hasidic couple will soon be deleted. One of the persons in the photo has submitted a request that it be deleted, discussion seen here: [2]. Of course, the author David Miller, alias David Shankbone, swooped down and demanded that it be restored: [3]. The matter is still in process, being monitored by an Admin: [4]. An editor has put this all in prespective -- view by navigating to the text with green background here: [5].
-- 71.127.229.128 ( talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am asking Commons:User:Nick, the Wikimedia Commons administrator processing the request, to confirm whether the David Shankbone photo involved in the Wikimedia Foundation request was the same as the one here, before taking further action. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As this issue has now been taken out of our hands, perhaps everyone could work towards improving the article? I note that this article does not have ONE citation or reference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it, how when there's a chance for controversy everyone wants to pitch in, but when article improvement begins, suddenly find they have to be elsewhere? Shame on you.
Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
14:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
hameiven yuvin- i understand the anonymous editor's comment. to be exact, Dev920 reads the editorials and more specifically the letters to the editor......."shame on you" 128.235.173.102 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC).
Which photo is more appropriate for the top of the article? Gilabrand's picture of a rabbi from behind, or this one which allows you to see the person, who happily represents the majority of Orthodox people? Sorry for the sarcasm, but we seem to have rolled from one dispute into another one, and I'm getting tired of it. I don't give a damn about this photo in particular, I just want a more representative one that a fuzzy depiction of a rabbi's ear. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's true that Emunah is commonly translated as "belief" or "faith", the source that was cited is correct in stating that this is a mistake. It derives from the noun "emet", or "truth", and means an assertion of something being true. - LisaLiel ( talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The picture of Rav Moshe Lichtenstein is better suited for Modern Orthodox Judaism, as he is specifically referenced as such and that article had no lead image. I placed it there, and substituted the picture of Rav Moshe who as the unarged posek hador better reflects all facets of Orthodox Jewry: Modern, Yeshivish/Haredi, Litvish (non-yeshivish), Hasidic, Sefardic, Oberland, etc. -- Avi ( talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
i agree. rov moshe feinstein is for sure more representative of "orthodox jewry" than an unknown modern orthodox rabbi. 68.50.99.248 ( talk) 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)jonah