![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I'm looking for an article to describe this document which is mentioned in Deuternomy 29:21. Trying to look up the term on Wikipedia only yields a Thelemic and a Mormon text which aren't it. I asked this question originally at the WikiProject Bible discussion page and was advised to also seek an answer here. __ meco ( talk) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.-- Gimme danger ( talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an important in the scope of Iraqi Jew history. any help will be appreciated! MiS-Saath ( talk) 06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that we're busy enough to warrant a monthly newsletter? You know, the ones that some of the larger WikiProjects leave on all the members' talk pages? I'd be willing to design and co-write if someone else is willing to help with writing. I think there's a bot that delivers newsletters automatically which saves tons of time, so I'll look into that.
Yes, no, maybe so?
L'Aquatique
review
05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean we're also going to collaborate on core Judaism articles? JFW | T@lk 05:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Birkat Hamazon currently contains a rather ungraceful link to an external site in the section "Source and text". Are people comfortable with this or should it be modified? -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please visit new discussion. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1372 of the articles assigned to this project, or 22.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(This is a duplicate of the same request on the WikiProject Christianity page)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, the parties have had a long-running dispute over this (among other Christian/Messianic issues). It's a fine idea to NOTIFY us here about whatever you all pursue with dispute resolution processes (see link for suggestions). But please, please do not carry on or recapitulate your content dispute here. A brief notification should suffice. I trust you both understand. Best of luck with your efforts. Take care, HG | Talk 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Could people here have a look at Aguda and confirm whether I've got the "union" or "organisation" bit right for the Hebrew definition? And would the "Israeli national LGBT organisation" name of Aguada be related to that? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
HI folks, would you mind lending an opinion article Freedom's_Watch. In this particular article an editor feels that the lead should have a pragraph detailing the number of Jewish members control the organization. Now I'm not Jewish and I don't proclaim to have any particular expertise in this area, but to me looked like thinly veiled "jew outing" and left a bad taste in my mouth, and a violation of WP:WEIGHT But maybe I'm wrong. If members of this project would be so kind to comment on that talk page I would be most appreciative. Comments supporting or negating my position are welcome. thanks much Dman727 ( talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As a Jew, I am very uncomfortable with the classification of Humanistic Judaism as part of the Judaism subject tree. I don't see how atheists who put on some Jewish trappings should be included under Judaism. Jewish culture, sure. But the religious link should be to Atheism only. TAPwiki ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A merge has been suggested for Texas A&M Hillel to the article History of the Jews in Brazos County, Texas. Texas A&M Hillel is the oldest Hillel organization on college campus. Also, the Jewish history of Brazos County, Texas is over 140 years old. These two subjects and their histories, I believe, are different enough to deserve seperate articles. Also, both have long histories and multiple sources. Bhaktivinode ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been quite a discussion brewing at Talk:Torah. Some of the extremes of the possible ways of covering religion articles have been covered, from attempts to rewrite everything from a Haredi Jewish perspective with a vigorous defense of cobbling all non-Orthodox opinion under the subtitle "Foreign Views", to a viewpoint that only academic sources are reliable and religion subjects should be presented from the viewpoint of academics. Perhaps other opinions had better weigh in. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's claimed that Moses has reached A article criteria. If so, it should be passes GA review. Thus I propose to nominate it for GA review.-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Has this project decided to use the new C-Class rating or not? If yes, I could adjust the project banner to accomodate it. Also, I am curious as to whether the members of this project might be interested in kind of reviving the various dormant Judaism projects by perhaps adding parameters to the existing WikiProject Judaism template similar to those in use in the Template:ChristianityWikiProject. Doing so would allow editors whose primary interest is a certain field of Judaism to perhaps concentrate their attention on that field a bit easier. Anyway, let me know your decisions. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks- Moses's GA review is on hold pending the addition of some citations. I'm going through and trying to find as many as I can, but there are a few that are eluding me. If anyone knows of reliable sources for the following statements, PLEASE add them ASAP. Thanks!
Thanks! L'Aquatique review 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this WikiProject has a number of dedicated editors, but at the moment it needs to take more ownership for articles under its aegis. I think we need to set some standards for Judaism articles that could be enshrined into a "style guide" of sorts. Issues that we could cover in such a guide are: (1) Hebrew pronunciation and transliteration, (2) Naming and formatting of personalities associated with Judaism (Maimonides versus Rambam, Vilna Gaon versus Gra versus Eliyahu of Vilna etc), etc.
One thing I believe needs to be discussed centrally is how to present daily Jewish practice. It is fairly straightforward, in an article like Shabbat or Kashrut, to summarise what the Shulchan Aruch and poskim say about a subject, often with substantial supportive material that confirms that this is daily practice amongst the Orthodox. However, for the sake of NPOV we need to mention the official stance of the major other streams of Judaism. That has nothing to do with mutual recognition, but it has everything to do with documenting Jewish religious practice in an encyclopedic fashion.
I'm very keen to hear some responses to this. Once we have set some general article standards it will be relatively easy to apply these to the "highly accessed" Judaism articles about Shabbat, Yom Tov, Kashrut and so on. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I can steer all I can, but we need a boat first (i.e. people willing to participate in this process). I can apply my experience from the medical collaboration of the fortnight, which is a good model that has recently yielded some very good results.
As for transliteration, I think we should primarily use the "neo-sephardi" Israeli spelling with as few diacritics as possible (i.e. the opposite of 1906 JE). JFW | T@lk 05:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I support that policy, and am curious what Tomer thinks about it. Another problem that we need to resolve before setting up a system of collaboration is: how do we address differences between streams of Judaism? For instance, many articles on mitzvot and halachot make it sound like their observance is normative in Judaism. Yet, in practice, Jews belonging to Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist etc communities, as well as those who are unaffiliated, would not adhere to these practices. Rather than the unsourced general chestnuts ("The Reform movement does not regard halacha as normative"), how could we possibly - in an NPOV way - point out that there are variances in adherence to these practices? This goes right to the heart of collaboration of this WikiProject being effective and not fraught with conflict. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Tim, what constitutes an accessible reliable source that illustrates Conservative or Reform practice? We are going to have problems with WP:V. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a few preliminary remarks regarding Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)... first off, it is internally inconsistent. Why, for example, does it prefer "Rehovot" over Rehoboth, but not "Yerushalayim" over Jerusalem? Second, why, other than the fact that Ashkenazim don't know how to distinguish them, does it deprecate ˁ, th and q for `ayin, thav and qof? unless...Third, this guideline really is only a guideline for article naming, rather than for spellings within articles...? Tomer talk 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement WP:NPOV in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked some fairly basic Hebrew questions on the Wikipedia language reference desk on July 20, and most of the questions are still unanswered. Could someone please help? I would really appreciate it! :) — Lowellian ( reply) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eyeballs needed for the work of Écrasez l'infâme ( talk · contribs), who has put pretty much the same content on a number of Bible-related articles, such as David, Solomon, Bible, Biblical archaeology and Ten Commandments. While sources are provided, and the perspective is valid, I have significant problems with the tone of these contributions and was wondering what the feeling of other contributors was. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The material you added is not factual. It's argumentation. Argumentation based on reliable sources, true, but still argumentation. It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative) to substantiate many parts of the biblical historical narrative. Going point by point the way you're doing is unnecessary. - LisaLiel ( talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am getting quite a constructive response from this editor, so perhaps we can work something out. Be prepared to take issue with contentious statements though—it is years since I last looked at Biblical archaeology. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Anybody care to improve P'tcha? Article is currently very stubby indeed. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, User Xyz7890 ( talk · contribs) created Template:Halakha. I have left the following message on his user page and asked that a discussion about this be started here for more input: "You recently created Template:Halakha but it is probelematic because ultimately all the 613 Mitzvot fit into Halachah one way or another, and the new template you created would duplicate much of Template:Jewish life and Template:Judaism. Before commencing a vote to merge Template:Halakha into Template:Jewish life I would like to get your views on the matter and see if we get can some input from other Judaic editors." What do others think? Thanks. IZAK ( talk) 06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am posting the following here from User talk:IZAK#More templates about Judaism that should not be duplicated
(copied from my [Xyz7890] talk page) Hi again, Xyz7890: See Template talk:Judaism#Duplication of other templates for many other Judaic and Torah-connected templates, especially: {{ Jewish and Israeli holidays}} ; {{ Jewish life}} . Thanks. IZAK ( talk) 07:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have found that these templates are confusing, and really need to be split. Judaism is not a single category, but is a lot of smaller ones.
I have already created a few Judaism templates, including {{ Shabbat}}, {{ High Holidays}}, and {{ Jewish prayers}}. I have been planning one on Sukkot for the future.
Having one for all the holidays is overwheling. Each major holiday has several categories within, as you can see with these and {{ Passover Footer}}. Some of the other ones, like {{ Jews and Judaism}} and {{ Jewish life}} are too broad, and those are the ones I am concerned about that eventually should be broken down.
The {{ Halakha}} one is not complete yet; gradually I am finding more articles and categories for it, though I am omitting it from pages found on the templates of Shabbat and the various holidays. It is more geared to halakha pertaining areas not covered in other templates. Xyz7890 ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Moshe David Tendler till I encountered a related request here. ( Here's my response.) The person making the request may have a valid point, but he's not (yet) its best advocate: there's all sorts of unencyclopedic and BLP-problematic allegations on the article's talk page. I know nothing of this subject matter, so invite one or two people here to take a look. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Haredi Judaism#Merger Proposal and add your views. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 12:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please join a discussion on the following on WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
Earlier today, an editor renamed the Mechitza article Mehitza on grounds that the change is required by this naming conventions guideline. Some questions:
I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope that some of you will be willing to help out on the Judaism section of Gender of God.
A certain editor has chosen to label reliable sources (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan and Jewfaq.com) as "opinion pieces" and relegate them to the bottom of the section, while placing things like the Reconstructionist siddur that uses feminine pronouns for God at the beginning.
When I moved these sources to the beginning of the section yesterday, this editor simply reverted my edit without comment and an edit war ensued. I should have asked for help at the time, but I (unwisely) chose to revert his reversion. By the end of the day, the other two editors had reverted the article six times between them, and I'd unreverted it as many times myself, resulting in a block which has been lifted after I promised not to do that any more. Fair enough.
However, this morning, the editor in question had reverted my edit for a seventh time, and I'm trying to pursue dispute resolution in order to prevent misrepresentation of the Jewish view. I'm asking editors who are part of the Judaism WikiProject to come and help. I have no problem with modern feminist views being represented in the section, but I'm trying to preserve the traditional Jewish view as well. Thanks in advance for your help. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm lazy, I'm just kibbitzing here on the talk page rather than helping out... but I think the traditional version slights kabbalistic perspective. Just because Rambam thought something A"Z doesn't mean that the Kabalists didn't believe it. Yudel ( talk) 02:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sorry I got involved in this mess. Please deal with it yourselves at WP:ANI or on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, anyone with a more sophisticated understanding of Hebrew language/linguistics want to help me figure out what kind of article or wl should exist Hebrew "stem class" terms like nifil, pi'el, etc.? (If any?) To me it seems like at least the general category "stem class" should exist as an article about linguistics. Thoughts? Kaisershatner ( talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Community RFC on proposed guideline. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the links added to a number of articles by 24.193.186.167 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On one hand, these look like CoI links to a self-published website. On the other hand, if the claims made on his website are true, he looks like a legitimate scholar, albeit a trifle controversial. My personal judgment was that if the articles have only been published on his website, regardless of how legit he is, they probably don't merit external links. I reverted them all except for a couple that someone got to before me. I'm requesting more eyes on them, and if I'm wrong, please revert me. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can a few experts from here drop in on this discussion? This is about merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Shalom, everyone-
IZAK and I cannot agree on which image is better for the Jewish Barnstar. Perhaps you guys can lend some input, taking into account overall aesthetics, image quality, recognizability, etc: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
L'Aquatique (
talk •
contribs)
[1]
Dear L'Aquatique: Usually the sex of users is not known and "he" and "she" is used interchangeably and when in doubt a user is a "he" unless it becomes known otherwise. So now we know you are a she. Your version does not have a "higher image quality" as one can see that the edges around your brown barnstar are fuzzy and unclear and the dark blue Star of David of yours is swallowed and lost and one has to do a double-take to really see it, unlike the main Star of David in the second version with its clear-cut and sharp lines, corners and colors reminiscent of the
Flag of Israel's famous and proud Star of David. The emphasis on blue in my preferred version makes it far more prominent and prettier and projects a strong message of Jewishness, just like the Star of David on the
Flag of Israel, see below, whereas yours clearly does not, just another mediocre and ugly barnstar. (Most of them need improvement by the way, so why not work on others first and then come back with some good ideas here later?) It makes far more sense that a symbol for a Jewish barnstar should look more like this:
unless you think that the flag of Israel is "not" "aesthetically pleasing" either. I totally diasgree that you are "improving" anything here when nothing needed improving, and your decision was totally arbitrary on such a delicate subject of important Jewish symbols.
IZAK (
talk)
16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I like #2 better, but I would like it even more if the interior (five pointed star) could be changed to a six pointed star. Is it required that barn stars have five points? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] IZAK! For goodness sakes! The reason I made a new one is because the old one was broken. The edges aren't smooth, the barnstar in the center is pixellated, and the color is splotched in the star of david. I'm really trying hard not to be insulting here, but frankly you're not granting me the same courtesy. The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve upon the work of others. I did that, and you're hanging me out to dry and leaving extended messages on my talk page complaining about other work I have done for this Wikiproject. This is not okay. L'Aquatique talk 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique is there a way you can just make your version available, and let users decide for themselves which to use? If there is, I suggest you do that. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, L'Aquatique, I think you accidentally reuploaded the same old image.Click on the image below and you will see what I mean.
Nerguy (
talk)
20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I like it! Can I give myself one? ;-) Tim ( talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why Category:Jews by religion (created by User Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) in March '08 [5] is not a violation of WP:NEO (a "Jew" of "another" religion is not the conventional way or referring to a Jewish apostate) and a violation of WP:POVFORK of Category:Converts from Judaism and why it should not be nominated for deletion or a merge into Category:Converts from Judaism. This is unquestionably somewhat tricky, since the word "Jew" can refer to an ethnicity, but it does open up a pandora's box since "Jew" does also refer to an adherent of Judaism always called Jew/s so that in this case it is best to focus on the religion of Judaism and not on a doubtful "Jew" label that is ambiguous and can refer to either the ethnicity or the religion of a Jew. It would accordingly make no sense that there be a category of Category:Christians by religion (other than referring to only Christian groups or divisions) or Category:Muslims by religion (other than only referring to Muslim groups). IZAK ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. Based on the flow of the discussion here and in order to avoid entirely obliterating Category:Jews by religion, for the time being I have redirected it to Category:Converts from Judaism and moved its few contents to Category:Converts from Judaism (a polite way of alluding to Jewish apostates). IZAK ( talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I've begun a formal discussion about Category:Jews by religion HERE. Feel free to replicate any of the comments/opinions you've made here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I highly suggest merging the following articles because two articles, with slightly different titles have been created, about the same subject.
Thank you-- Nerguy ( talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Nerguy ( talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Eveyone are invited:
-- Shevashalosh ( talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Chesdovi and I appear to be in an edit dispute in the Minyan article. Chesdovi takes the view that there is too much content on issues of women in the article and these issues should be drastically cut. My view has been that because that the issue of women in a minyan has been a defining issue in distinguishing Conservative Judaism from Orthodox Judaism on ideological grounds and has been of immense importance in Conservative Judaism and of no small importance in Modern Orthodox Judaism, a substantial amount of coverage is not undue weight. I would not object to the subject getting its own article, and might be open to arguments that some of the content may belong in a different article. However, I would object to the out-and-out deletion of the content from the Minyan article, particularly since Chesdovi's edit reduced discussion of Conservative Judaism to a single sentence and removed all discussion of anything to the left. Although Chesdovi finds that it adds unnecessary length and emphasis, my view is that an informative discussion of women and minyan needs to provide some background on the different views of the role of women in prayer in order to explain the different conclusions about the status of women with respect to a minyan. And although I agree that public prayer should be the main focus of the article, I would object to making that exclusive, since the concept of a quorum exists for a variety of other purposes and the word "minyan" is used in some contexts where the required number is not 10. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
CfD here -- Jheald ( talk) 08:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently created Gate of Mercy Synagogue and have put it up for DYK. I am not very familiar with the topic so could someone please:
Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody heard of Selective Judaism? A new editor just created an article about it. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a new form of judaism that not many are apart of so i would be SUPRISED if someone knows about it. but i have heard of it
It was created in 2003 i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash ( talk • contribs)
Its not a host because i dont think anyone would find it funny at all. its an actual denomination. That i am apart of as well as under 100 people. if you havent heard of it doesnt mean you have to delete. Something has to start some where. If you think this isnt real then i dont htink you think Alternative Judaism or Humanistic Judaism is real either now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the blog was created today because we were previously with word press. The website is not a joke. I find your language to be immature like the words "joke" and etc. Please if you have a busy life and if you are a "pro" then please type like one because from what i read it is easier to see who the bigger person is. Please when you are ready i will delete the wikipedia and everything else isnt your business but the members of Selective Judaism. Beitmidrash ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being professional and friendly. I will pray for you all during Yom Kippur especially Malik for his wrongdoing. Shalom everyone and hope you all keep up the work. Beitmidrash ( talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) The issue is resolved and the thread can be archived. HG | Talk 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral eyes would be appreciated at Yahweh.
Previously, eg this revision, the article opened with a decent lead, setting out why Jews don't pronounce the Name, and different proposals exist for its vocalisation.
Davidamos ( talk · contribs), who appears to be motivated by a fringe Christian group called the Assemblies of Yahweh, has been editing the article to downplay any doubt about "Yahweh" as the correct reconstruction of the Name. He's also trashed the lead because in his view "The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh [ie the 'Assemblies of Yahweh'], not the groups who don't". [7]
The article, to be fair, was previously a bit sprawling. But these new edits aren't going in the right direction. I've already had probably more than my fair quota of reverts, so I'd appreciate if others could take this on. Jheald ( talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
CheskiChips ( talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Why in this article is it deemed acceptable to write the name of HaShem? Please can we consider having this changed to YodHey, or some other version that's not directly written. It's an irrevocable avera for many of the Jews that will be viewing this page.
Hi folks. Anybody want to create an article on Kabbalah scholar Moshe Idel? Should be an easy DYK to do. More than 1,000 hits in Google Scholar. HG | Talk 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm surprised there's no article on Har Zion Temple nr Philly, locale for Friedman's The New Rabbi: A Congregation Searches for its Leader book. HG | Talk 05:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone who really knows his stuff please have a look at this article? It's become something of a coatrack for, well, weird ideas, mainly regarding claims about modern-day ethnic groups being members of the mysterious ten lost tribes. There were several recent edits by someone who, from his website, appears to be a Messianic. Obviously, Messianics have the same right to edit articles that anyone else does, but I reverted one of them because it seemed highly POV, unsourced and apparently OR (although I doubt that it was actually original). I'd be more comfortable with more eyes on that revert as well as attention from some of the more knowledgeable members of this project on the overall article. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be completely removed in entirety? Well perhaps mention of who the 10 tribes are and how they were disobedient etc etc. But only historically written things, or even oral traditions of the people. However the majority of these things don't even have historically charted oral traditions, it's as if there's world-wide gaps of people scattered looking for a place to belong. There are sigificantly "valid" claims, such as the Japaneese connections some language similarities and their ancient temples. Also perhaps for Christians even the tribe of Dan in Ireland or the Danish. But seriously...is there no way to just remove the bulk of this article? The majority of it is really just the misunderstanding of what the tribes were by people who never studied Hebrew or Hebrew-related things. CheskiChips ( talk) 08:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay SECOND note. I cleared out a lot of the garbage here and put reasonings on the discussion page, we'll see how much stands and how much is changed. I doubt there are a lot of people who really believe the things on the page, the bulk was most likely entered by a small faction. I will definitely need help. Has anyone considered allowing for a "Supposed Claim" page. There is a significant amount that can be written about the 10 tribes, but as it is...it doesn't fit in the article.
CheskiChips (
talk)
08:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Third note: I made significant edits to the page, and removed unsubstantiated facts. They were all reverted the very next day, apparentally there is no way to remove this problem. Can someone help me create a 'claims' page for compromise.
CheskiChips (
talk)
19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not absolute truth. It requires all relevant perspectives to be covered within the constraints of their notability. If you are looking for the emes, other sources rather than Wikipedia are at your disposal. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Could some people
help us on Talk:Shimon Peres#Birthday ? Thank you. Teofilo talk 13:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In case you are interested, please read and speak your conscience, whichever way it may be at Talk:Circumcision#Name. -- Avi ( talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a snip from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:
Also from Proper_noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns:
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the common noun god denotes all deities, while the proper noun God references the monotheistic God specifically.
The way I read that:
The reason I'm bringing this up here is that it's come to my attention that someone is using a misreading of the Manual of Style to vandalize the use of "God" in a broad spectrum of articles. The individual in question is trying to make "God" into a common noun "god" even in contexts of monotheistic articles in which "God" cannot be a common noun (because there are no other gods to share the title with). I've tried to point out that monotheistic religions use "God" as a proper noun (because there is only and can only be one) and also substantively as a proper name (because we do not use the Divine Name).
In any case, I cannot deal with this by myself without resorting to edit wars, and I have no intention of drumming up a posse. But I'm bringing this up here to let everyone know that there is a systematic effort going to demote "God" into "god" in monotheistic contexts (which is nonsensical). If anyone has any suggestions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Tim ( talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Skywriter's assessment is based on a faulty understanding of both the MoS and the syntactic theory involved. For an explanation of what I've actually been doing, along with the rationale, see my conversation with L'Aquatique. Ilkali ( talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that god contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The 'one god' is omnipotent and all-pervading, the universe is part of god, and god is both immanent and transcendent.
- However, in dualistic theologies as that of Gnosticism, the two deities are not of equal rank, and the role of the Gnostic demiurge is closer to that of Satan in Christian theology than that of a diarch on equal terms with god (who is represented in pantheistic fashion, as Pleroma).
Hi. Thanks for notifying us about this content discussion/dispute. Feel free to continue the discussion at the article talk page or thru suitable WP:DR mechanisms. This WikiProject page doesn't need more of the content discussion, though do please leaves links to any other pages where the discussion might occur. Take care, HG | Talk 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I just made this suggestion on Talk:Rabbinic_literature on the accessibility of that category for 'outsiders', but considering that particular talk page is pretty quiet, if not dead, I thought it might be wise to post it here as well to ensure it is seen by people who can do something with it. Please see Talk:Rabbinic_literature#Suggestion.
Regards,
Anonymous / 82.156.55.208 ( talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been a change in the Template:Antisemitism from this [10] to this [11]. Any comments on which version seems better would be appreciated here [12]. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this article about the first official female rabbi; however, it looks to be in rather poor shape and could certainly stand to be expanded given the historical nature of her life and work. Does anyone who knows more about her life want to give it a whirl? Thought it might make a good community project here, perhaps even work it up to FA status eventually. Just a suggestion, -- Wassermann ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous users are trying to insert the canard that goy means cattle. Please keep your eyes out for this. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 12:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rather heavily edited over the past couple of days by one editor. I think it would be a good idea for some members of this project to get involved there. Our only other member who's been there recently (besides myself) is LisaLiel, who is at the disadvantage of being under arbcom restrictions. I reverted a long series of Pico's edits because I thought such wholesale changes should be discussed on the talk page. He declined to do so and (as far as I can tell) put the changes back. I'll be frank and say that the reason Pico's editing concerns me is the fact that he made this edit to Exodus, claiming that it's some kind of established archeological fact that the Exodus never happened, a claim which I regard as absurd on its face. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a disambiguation page, Joshua ben Nun, to which I've added a query: is this correct? I've always seen and heard bin Nun, but the page for Joshua in English makes no mention of this. There isn't even a redirect page for "Joshua bin Nun" at present. An authoritative answer and, if necessary, comprehensive corrections, would be of great help. (I need this for editing the Battle of Latrun page.) -- Many thanks, Deborahjay ( talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the redirect, but my posting here is a request for authoritative clarification of which name should be used in all references to Joshua, and how to accomplish any further editing reflecting this. I'm not a Bible scholar but conduct plenty of infosearches (web and library) for my translation work and editing WP, and my difficulty in clarifing this elsewhere indicates to me that others too may benefit by adding this info to the Joshua page and related ones. (I may resort to the Encyclopedia Judaica once I get back to the office tomorrow.)-- Deborahjay ( talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some editors here to take a look at Jewish religious movements, particularly the table. In it, we're confidently informed that what Americans and Canadians call Reform Judaism is about equivalent on the liberal/conservative spectrum to what the British call Liberal Judaism. On the other hand, British Reform Judaism is more like American Reconstructionist Judaism. I just wonder whether there's any source for any of this, or is it just a load of original research? I left a brief note at the talk page, but it doesn't seem to get much traffic, so I thought I'd bring it here. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a section in this article entitled "The Christian Trinity and the prohibition against idolatry". Leaving aside the inappropriate polemecizing of Christian views in an article about a Jewish (and Noachide) concept, this section is entirely original research. Furthermore, it cites Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in an out of context manner to make it seem as though he is saying something he objects to. I e-mailed Rabbi Telushkin to check with him about this, and he was appalled that he would be misrepresented this way.
All of this has been dealt with in the article on Shituf. It appears that the same editor who had been insisting on doing this in that article is trying to do it here as well.
I really don't want to get into a conflict with him again. I hope that some of you can come and help out. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This biography has been recently rewritten to coincide with the anniversary of their death on November 27 as well as a feature film on them released around the same date. While awaiting further research material on request from libraries as well as some licensing for images it is now in a peer review. Other editors are welcome to offer constructive feedback and assistance. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an editor who is inserting original research into this article, and using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm limited to a 1RR, so I'd appreciate it if someone could drop by and help. Here's the diff of his changes: [13]. - LisaLiel ( talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW -- I just checked the user's contribs, and there are a number of pages involved in similar edits. I posted a note on his talk page, and I'll try to talk to him about some of the other pages involved when he replies. Right now I've just given him a welcome with a couple of pointers. I haven't looked at the other pages in detail yet. I don't know if they've been reverted. Seems like good faith, but newbie, edits with OR and a specific interest in the Divine Name. Tim ( talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to follow up, the user in question has been confirmed to be a sock of a previously blocked user. The edits from all of the socks have left a good bit of debris in a number of articles. We need to clean out the problems remaining in the articles edited by the following socks:
It's important that we can create a stable version of each article so that additional socks can be easily reverted to a known stable form. Yahweh was one of the affected articles, and there are several others. Can we have some help eyeballing the articles and catching anything fringe that needs to be set aside? Thanks.
Also, kudos to Lisa for being the first to catch the newest sock. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I'm looking for an article to describe this document which is mentioned in Deuternomy 29:21. Trying to look up the term on Wikipedia only yields a Thelemic and a Mormon text which aren't it. I asked this question originally at the WikiProject Bible discussion page and was advised to also seek an answer here. __ meco ( talk) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles Predestination and Types of religious predestination have been listed to be merged for over a year. A drive is on to clear out Category:Articles to be merged since April 2007 and this merger could use the attention of someone with expertise in the field, or at least someone who knows more than me. If anyone could take a look, it would be greatly appreciated.-- Gimme danger ( talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an important in the scope of Iraqi Jew history. any help will be appreciated! MiS-Saath ( talk) 06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that we're busy enough to warrant a monthly newsletter? You know, the ones that some of the larger WikiProjects leave on all the members' talk pages? I'd be willing to design and co-write if someone else is willing to help with writing. I think there's a bot that delivers newsletters automatically which saves tons of time, so I'll look into that.
Yes, no, maybe so?
L'Aquatique
review
05:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean we're also going to collaborate on core Judaism articles? JFW | T@lk 05:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Birkat Hamazon currently contains a rather ungraceful link to an external site in the section "Source and text". Are people comfortable with this or should it be modified? -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please visit new discussion. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1372 of the articles assigned to this project, or 22.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
(This is a duplicate of the same request on the WikiProject Christianity page)
Another editor has requested mediation on the Shituf page, so I looked up the mediation process. The first step is to ask for third party opinion -- which is the reason I'm here.
Shituf, briefly, is a Jewish term applied to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The definition of the concept, however, appears to be Arian: lesser beings (the son and spirit) worshipped in junior "partnership" with God. Accordingly, I included a short Christian view section which simply describes that Christianity has formally rejected multiple deities in junior partnership since Nicea.
The contention is whether or not the section should be included.
My argument is that an article describing Jews eating human blood on passover would require a short section describing that Jews actually FORBID such a practice. Accordingly, an article describing Christians in Arian ways would require a short section describing that Christianity actually FORBIDS such a belief.
In any case, since the other editor suggested mediation, I'm taking the first step and asking for third party review.
Thanks. Tim ( talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, the parties have had a long-running dispute over this (among other Christian/Messianic issues). It's a fine idea to NOTIFY us here about whatever you all pursue with dispute resolution processes (see link for suggestions). But please, please do not carry on or recapitulate your content dispute here. A brief notification should suffice. I trust you both understand. Best of luck with your efforts. Take care, HG | Talk 18:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Could people here have a look at Aguda and confirm whether I've got the "union" or "organisation" bit right for the Hebrew definition? And would the "Israeli national LGBT organisation" name of Aguada be related to that? Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
HI folks, would you mind lending an opinion article Freedom's_Watch. In this particular article an editor feels that the lead should have a pragraph detailing the number of Jewish members control the organization. Now I'm not Jewish and I don't proclaim to have any particular expertise in this area, but to me looked like thinly veiled "jew outing" and left a bad taste in my mouth, and a violation of WP:WEIGHT But maybe I'm wrong. If members of this project would be so kind to comment on that talk page I would be most appreciative. Comments supporting or negating my position are welcome. thanks much Dman727 ( talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As a Jew, I am very uncomfortable with the classification of Humanistic Judaism as part of the Judaism subject tree. I don't see how atheists who put on some Jewish trappings should be included under Judaism. Jewish culture, sure. But the religious link should be to Atheism only. TAPwiki ( talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A merge has been suggested for Texas A&M Hillel to the article History of the Jews in Brazos County, Texas. Texas A&M Hillel is the oldest Hillel organization on college campus. Also, the Jewish history of Brazos County, Texas is over 140 years old. These two subjects and their histories, I believe, are different enough to deserve seperate articles. Also, both have long histories and multiple sources. Bhaktivinode ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There's been quite a discussion brewing at Talk:Torah. Some of the extremes of the possible ways of covering religion articles have been covered, from attempts to rewrite everything from a Haredi Jewish perspective with a vigorous defense of cobbling all non-Orthodox opinion under the subtitle "Foreign Views", to a viewpoint that only academic sources are reliable and religion subjects should be presented from the viewpoint of academics. Perhaps other opinions had better weigh in. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 09:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's claimed that Moses has reached A article criteria. If so, it should be passes GA review. Thus I propose to nominate it for GA review.-- Seyyed( t- c) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion on the talk page of the above article regarding how much weight should be given to traditional dating of Biblical works relative to modern academic conclusions at Talk:Dating the Bible#"but according to medieval sources...". All input is welcome. John Carter ( talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposing an example explaining the appropriate use of religious sources in religion-related articles. The intention is to clarify and explain existing policy, not to change it. There have been a number of debates over the years, some of them heated, about whether and what kinds of religious sources should be used. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Has this project decided to use the new C-Class rating or not? If yes, I could adjust the project banner to accomodate it. Also, I am curious as to whether the members of this project might be interested in kind of reviving the various dormant Judaism projects by perhaps adding parameters to the existing WikiProject Judaism template similar to those in use in the Template:ChristianityWikiProject. Doing so would allow editors whose primary interest is a certain field of Judaism to perhaps concentrate their attention on that field a bit easier. Anyway, let me know your decisions. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey folks- Moses's GA review is on hold pending the addition of some citations. I'm going through and trying to find as many as I can, but there are a few that are eluding me. If anyone knows of reliable sources for the following statements, PLEASE add them ASAP. Thanks!
Thanks! L'Aquatique review 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this WikiProject has a number of dedicated editors, but at the moment it needs to take more ownership for articles under its aegis. I think we need to set some standards for Judaism articles that could be enshrined into a "style guide" of sorts. Issues that we could cover in such a guide are: (1) Hebrew pronunciation and transliteration, (2) Naming and formatting of personalities associated with Judaism (Maimonides versus Rambam, Vilna Gaon versus Gra versus Eliyahu of Vilna etc), etc.
One thing I believe needs to be discussed centrally is how to present daily Jewish practice. It is fairly straightforward, in an article like Shabbat or Kashrut, to summarise what the Shulchan Aruch and poskim say about a subject, often with substantial supportive material that confirms that this is daily practice amongst the Orthodox. However, for the sake of NPOV we need to mention the official stance of the major other streams of Judaism. That has nothing to do with mutual recognition, but it has everything to do with documenting Jewish religious practice in an encyclopedic fashion.
I'm very keen to hear some responses to this. Once we have set some general article standards it will be relatively easy to apply these to the "highly accessed" Judaism articles about Shabbat, Yom Tov, Kashrut and so on. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I can steer all I can, but we need a boat first (i.e. people willing to participate in this process). I can apply my experience from the medical collaboration of the fortnight, which is a good model that has recently yielded some very good results.
As for transliteration, I think we should primarily use the "neo-sephardi" Israeli spelling with as few diacritics as possible (i.e. the opposite of 1906 JE). JFW | T@lk 05:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I support that policy, and am curious what Tomer thinks about it. Another problem that we need to resolve before setting up a system of collaboration is: how do we address differences between streams of Judaism? For instance, many articles on mitzvot and halachot make it sound like their observance is normative in Judaism. Yet, in practice, Jews belonging to Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist etc communities, as well as those who are unaffiliated, would not adhere to these practices. Rather than the unsourced general chestnuts ("The Reform movement does not regard halacha as normative"), how could we possibly - in an NPOV way - point out that there are variances in adherence to these practices? This goes right to the heart of collaboration of this WikiProject being effective and not fraught with conflict. JFW | T@lk 08:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Tim, what constitutes an accessible reliable source that illustrates Conservative or Reform practice? We are going to have problems with WP:V. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a few preliminary remarks regarding Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)... first off, it is internally inconsistent. Why, for example, does it prefer "Rehovot" over Rehoboth, but not "Yerushalayim" over Jerusalem? Second, why, other than the fact that Ashkenazim don't know how to distinguish them, does it deprecate ˁ, th and q for `ayin, thav and qof? unless...Third, this guideline really is only a guideline for article naming, rather than for spellings within articles...? Tomer talk 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Because this issue comes up often and can be a source of contention, I am proposing adding a paragraph to the existing WP:NPOV/FAQ#religion with a more careful and clearer explanation of language to use and how to present the subject to implement WP:NPOV in articles involving disputes between religious views and historians/scientists etc. Doubtless the proposal can be improved. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I asked some fairly basic Hebrew questions on the Wikipedia language reference desk on July 20, and most of the questions are still unanswered. Could someone please help? I would really appreciate it! :) — Lowellian ( reply) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Eyeballs needed for the work of Écrasez l'infâme ( talk · contribs), who has put pretty much the same content on a number of Bible-related articles, such as David, Solomon, Bible, Biblical archaeology and Ten Commandments. While sources are provided, and the perspective is valid, I have significant problems with the tone of these contributions and was wondering what the feeling of other contributors was. JFW | T@lk 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The material you added is not factual. It's argumentation. Argumentation based on reliable sources, true, but still argumentation. It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative) to substantiate many parts of the biblical historical narrative. Going point by point the way you're doing is unnecessary. - LisaLiel ( talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I am getting quite a constructive response from this editor, so perhaps we can work something out. Be prepared to take issue with contentious statements though—it is years since I last looked at Biblical archaeology. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Anybody care to improve P'tcha? Article is currently very stubby indeed. -- 201.17.36.246 ( talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently, User Xyz7890 ( talk · contribs) created Template:Halakha. I have left the following message on his user page and asked that a discussion about this be started here for more input: "You recently created Template:Halakha but it is probelematic because ultimately all the 613 Mitzvot fit into Halachah one way or another, and the new template you created would duplicate much of Template:Jewish life and Template:Judaism. Before commencing a vote to merge Template:Halakha into Template:Jewish life I would like to get your views on the matter and see if we get can some input from other Judaic editors." What do others think? Thanks. IZAK ( talk) 06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am posting the following here from User talk:IZAK#More templates about Judaism that should not be duplicated
(copied from my [Xyz7890] talk page) Hi again, Xyz7890: See Template talk:Judaism#Duplication of other templates for many other Judaic and Torah-connected templates, especially: {{ Jewish and Israeli holidays}} ; {{ Jewish life}} . Thanks. IZAK ( talk) 07:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have found that these templates are confusing, and really need to be split. Judaism is not a single category, but is a lot of smaller ones.
I have already created a few Judaism templates, including {{ Shabbat}}, {{ High Holidays}}, and {{ Jewish prayers}}. I have been planning one on Sukkot for the future.
Having one for all the holidays is overwheling. Each major holiday has several categories within, as you can see with these and {{ Passover Footer}}. Some of the other ones, like {{ Jews and Judaism}} and {{ Jewish life}} are too broad, and those are the ones I am concerned about that eventually should be broken down.
The {{ Halakha}} one is not complete yet; gradually I am finding more articles and categories for it, though I am omitting it from pages found on the templates of Shabbat and the various holidays. It is more geared to halakha pertaining areas not covered in other templates. Xyz7890 ( talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd never heard of Moshe David Tendler till I encountered a related request here. ( Here's my response.) The person making the request may have a valid point, but he's not (yet) its best advocate: there's all sorts of unencyclopedic and BLP-problematic allegations on the article's talk page. I know nothing of this subject matter, so invite one or two people here to take a look. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Haredi Judaism#Merger Proposal and add your views. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 12:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please join a discussion on the following on WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)
Earlier today, an editor renamed the Mechitza article Mehitza on grounds that the change is required by this naming conventions guideline. Some questions:
I have proposed this template for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 30. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope that some of you will be willing to help out on the Judaism section of Gender of God.
A certain editor has chosen to label reliable sources (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan and Jewfaq.com) as "opinion pieces" and relegate them to the bottom of the section, while placing things like the Reconstructionist siddur that uses feminine pronouns for God at the beginning.
When I moved these sources to the beginning of the section yesterday, this editor simply reverted my edit without comment and an edit war ensued. I should have asked for help at the time, but I (unwisely) chose to revert his reversion. By the end of the day, the other two editors had reverted the article six times between them, and I'd unreverted it as many times myself, resulting in a block which has been lifted after I promised not to do that any more. Fair enough.
However, this morning, the editor in question had reverted my edit for a seventh time, and I'm trying to pursue dispute resolution in order to prevent misrepresentation of the Jewish view. I'm asking editors who are part of the Judaism WikiProject to come and help. I have no problem with modern feminist views being represented in the section, but I'm trying to preserve the traditional Jewish view as well. Thanks in advance for your help. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm lazy, I'm just kibbitzing here on the talk page rather than helping out... but I think the traditional version slights kabbalistic perspective. Just because Rambam thought something A"Z doesn't mean that the Kabalists didn't believe it. Yudel ( talk) 02:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I'm sorry I got involved in this mess. Please deal with it yourselves at WP:ANI or on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, anyone with a more sophisticated understanding of Hebrew language/linguistics want to help me figure out what kind of article or wl should exist Hebrew "stem class" terms like nifil, pi'el, etc.? (If any?) To me it seems like at least the general category "stem class" should exist as an article about linguistics. Thoughts? Kaisershatner ( talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi! A request for comments has been made for this proposed guideline. Please comment at WT:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#Community RFC on proposed guideline. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the links added to a number of articles by 24.193.186.167 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On one hand, these look like CoI links to a self-published website. On the other hand, if the claims made on his website are true, he looks like a legitimate scholar, albeit a trifle controversial. My personal judgment was that if the articles have only been published on his website, regardless of how legit he is, they probably don't merit external links. I reverted them all except for a couple that someone got to before me. I'm requesting more eyes on them, and if I'm wrong, please revert me. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can a few experts from here drop in on this discussion? This is about merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Shalom, everyone-
IZAK and I cannot agree on which image is better for the Jewish Barnstar. Perhaps you guys can lend some input, taking into account overall aesthetics, image quality, recognizability, etc: — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
L'Aquatique (
talk •
contribs)
[1]
Dear L'Aquatique: Usually the sex of users is not known and "he" and "she" is used interchangeably and when in doubt a user is a "he" unless it becomes known otherwise. So now we know you are a she. Your version does not have a "higher image quality" as one can see that the edges around your brown barnstar are fuzzy and unclear and the dark blue Star of David of yours is swallowed and lost and one has to do a double-take to really see it, unlike the main Star of David in the second version with its clear-cut and sharp lines, corners and colors reminiscent of the
Flag of Israel's famous and proud Star of David. The emphasis on blue in my preferred version makes it far more prominent and prettier and projects a strong message of Jewishness, just like the Star of David on the
Flag of Israel, see below, whereas yours clearly does not, just another mediocre and ugly barnstar. (Most of them need improvement by the way, so why not work on others first and then come back with some good ideas here later?) It makes far more sense that a symbol for a Jewish barnstar should look more like this:
unless you think that the flag of Israel is "not" "aesthetically pleasing" either. I totally diasgree that you are "improving" anything here when nothing needed improving, and your decision was totally arbitrary on such a delicate subject of important Jewish symbols.
IZAK (
talk)
16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I like #2 better, but I would like it even more if the interior (five pointed star) could be changed to a six pointed star. Is it required that barn stars have five points? Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
[unindent] IZAK! For goodness sakes! The reason I made a new one is because the old one was broken. The edges aren't smooth, the barnstar in the center is pixellated, and the color is splotched in the star of david. I'm really trying hard not to be insulting here, but frankly you're not granting me the same courtesy. The whole point of Wikipedia is to improve upon the work of others. I did that, and you're hanging me out to dry and leaving extended messages on my talk page complaining about other work I have done for this Wikiproject. This is not okay. L'Aquatique talk 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique is there a way you can just make your version available, and let users decide for themselves which to use? If there is, I suggest you do that. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, L'Aquatique, I think you accidentally reuploaded the same old image.Click on the image below and you will see what I mean.
Nerguy (
talk)
20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I like it! Can I give myself one? ;-) Tim ( talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why Category:Jews by religion (created by User Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) in March '08 [5] is not a violation of WP:NEO (a "Jew" of "another" religion is not the conventional way or referring to a Jewish apostate) and a violation of WP:POVFORK of Category:Converts from Judaism and why it should not be nominated for deletion or a merge into Category:Converts from Judaism. This is unquestionably somewhat tricky, since the word "Jew" can refer to an ethnicity, but it does open up a pandora's box since "Jew" does also refer to an adherent of Judaism always called Jew/s so that in this case it is best to focus on the religion of Judaism and not on a doubtful "Jew" label that is ambiguous and can refer to either the ethnicity or the religion of a Jew. It would accordingly make no sense that there be a category of Category:Christians by religion (other than referring to only Christian groups or divisions) or Category:Muslims by religion (other than only referring to Muslim groups). IZAK ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. Based on the flow of the discussion here and in order to avoid entirely obliterating Category:Jews by religion, for the time being I have redirected it to Category:Converts from Judaism and moved its few contents to Category:Converts from Judaism (a polite way of alluding to Jewish apostates). IZAK ( talk) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I've begun a formal discussion about Category:Jews by religion HERE. Feel free to replicate any of the comments/opinions you've made here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I highly suggest merging the following articles because two articles, with slightly different titles have been created, about the same subject.
Thank you-- Nerguy ( talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.-- Nerguy ( talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Eveyone are invited:
-- Shevashalosh ( talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Chesdovi and I appear to be in an edit dispute in the Minyan article. Chesdovi takes the view that there is too much content on issues of women in the article and these issues should be drastically cut. My view has been that because that the issue of women in a minyan has been a defining issue in distinguishing Conservative Judaism from Orthodox Judaism on ideological grounds and has been of immense importance in Conservative Judaism and of no small importance in Modern Orthodox Judaism, a substantial amount of coverage is not undue weight. I would not object to the subject getting its own article, and might be open to arguments that some of the content may belong in a different article. However, I would object to the out-and-out deletion of the content from the Minyan article, particularly since Chesdovi's edit reduced discussion of Conservative Judaism to a single sentence and removed all discussion of anything to the left. Although Chesdovi finds that it adds unnecessary length and emphasis, my view is that an informative discussion of women and minyan needs to provide some background on the different views of the role of women in prayer in order to explain the different conclusions about the status of women with respect to a minyan. And although I agree that public prayer should be the main focus of the article, I would object to making that exclusive, since the concept of a quorum exists for a variety of other purposes and the word "minyan" is used in some contexts where the required number is not 10. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
CfD here -- Jheald ( talk) 08:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I recently created Gate of Mercy Synagogue and have put it up for DYK. I am not very familiar with the topic so could someone please:
Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody heard of Selective Judaism? A new editor just created an article about it. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Its a new form of judaism that not many are apart of so i would be SUPRISED if someone knows about it. but i have heard of it
It was created in 2003 i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash ( talk • contribs)
Its not a host because i dont think anyone would find it funny at all. its an actual denomination. That i am apart of as well as under 100 people. if you havent heard of it doesnt mean you have to delete. Something has to start some where. If you think this isnt real then i dont htink you think Alternative Judaism or Humanistic Judaism is real either now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmidrash ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the blog was created today because we were previously with word press. The website is not a joke. I find your language to be immature like the words "joke" and etc. Please if you have a busy life and if you are a "pro" then please type like one because from what i read it is easier to see who the bigger person is. Please when you are ready i will delete the wikipedia and everything else isnt your business but the members of Selective Judaism. Beitmidrash ( talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being professional and friendly. I will pray for you all during Yom Kippur especially Malik for his wrongdoing. Shalom everyone and hope you all keep up the work. Beitmidrash ( talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC) The issue is resolved and the thread can be archived. HG | Talk 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral eyes would be appreciated at Yahweh.
Previously, eg this revision, the article opened with a decent lead, setting out why Jews don't pronounce the Name, and different proposals exist for its vocalisation.
Davidamos ( talk · contribs), who appears to be motivated by a fringe Christian group called the Assemblies of Yahweh, has been editing the article to downplay any doubt about "Yahweh" as the correct reconstruction of the Name. He's also trashed the lead because in his view "The article should begin with the groups who use the name Yahweh [ie the 'Assemblies of Yahweh'], not the groups who don't". [7]
The article, to be fair, was previously a bit sprawling. But these new edits aren't going in the right direction. I've already had probably more than my fair quota of reverts, so I'd appreciate if others could take this on. Jheald ( talk) 12:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
CheskiChips ( talk) 11:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Why in this article is it deemed acceptable to write the name of HaShem? Please can we consider having this changed to YodHey, or some other version that's not directly written. It's an irrevocable avera for many of the Jews that will be viewing this page.
Hi folks. Anybody want to create an article on Kabbalah scholar Moshe Idel? Should be an easy DYK to do. More than 1,000 hits in Google Scholar. HG | Talk 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm surprised there's no article on Har Zion Temple nr Philly, locale for Friedman's The New Rabbi: A Congregation Searches for its Leader book. HG | Talk 05:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone who really knows his stuff please have a look at this article? It's become something of a coatrack for, well, weird ideas, mainly regarding claims about modern-day ethnic groups being members of the mysterious ten lost tribes. There were several recent edits by someone who, from his website, appears to be a Messianic. Obviously, Messianics have the same right to edit articles that anyone else does, but I reverted one of them because it seemed highly POV, unsourced and apparently OR (although I doubt that it was actually original). I'd be more comfortable with more eyes on that revert as well as attention from some of the more knowledgeable members of this project on the overall article. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be completely removed in entirety? Well perhaps mention of who the 10 tribes are and how they were disobedient etc etc. But only historically written things, or even oral traditions of the people. However the majority of these things don't even have historically charted oral traditions, it's as if there's world-wide gaps of people scattered looking for a place to belong. There are sigificantly "valid" claims, such as the Japaneese connections some language similarities and their ancient temples. Also perhaps for Christians even the tribe of Dan in Ireland or the Danish. But seriously...is there no way to just remove the bulk of this article? The majority of it is really just the misunderstanding of what the tribes were by people who never studied Hebrew or Hebrew-related things. CheskiChips ( talk) 08:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay SECOND note. I cleared out a lot of the garbage here and put reasonings on the discussion page, we'll see how much stands and how much is changed. I doubt there are a lot of people who really believe the things on the page, the bulk was most likely entered by a small faction. I will definitely need help. Has anyone considered allowing for a "Supposed Claim" page. There is a significant amount that can be written about the 10 tribes, but as it is...it doesn't fit in the article.
CheskiChips (
talk)
08:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Third note: I made significant edits to the page, and removed unsubstantiated facts. They were all reverted the very next day, apparentally there is no way to remove this problem. Can someone help me create a 'claims' page for compromise.
CheskiChips (
talk)
19:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not absolute truth. It requires all relevant perspectives to be covered within the constraints of their notability. If you are looking for the emes, other sources rather than Wikipedia are at your disposal. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Could some people
help us on Talk:Shimon Peres#Birthday ? Thank you. Teofilo talk 13:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In case you are interested, please read and speak your conscience, whichever way it may be at Talk:Circumcision#Name. -- Avi ( talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a snip from the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style:
Also from Proper_noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns:
Sometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example the common noun god denotes all deities, while the proper noun God references the monotheistic God specifically.
The way I read that:
The reason I'm bringing this up here is that it's come to my attention that someone is using a misreading of the Manual of Style to vandalize the use of "God" in a broad spectrum of articles. The individual in question is trying to make "God" into a common noun "god" even in contexts of monotheistic articles in which "God" cannot be a common noun (because there are no other gods to share the title with). I've tried to point out that monotheistic religions use "God" as a proper noun (because there is only and can only be one) and also substantively as a proper name (because we do not use the Divine Name).
In any case, I cannot deal with this by myself without resorting to edit wars, and I have no intention of drumming up a posse. But I'm bringing this up here to let everyone know that there is a systematic effort going to demote "God" into "god" in monotheistic contexts (which is nonsensical). If anyone has any suggestions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Tim ( talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Skywriter's assessment is based on a faulty understanding of both the MoS and the syntactic theory involved. For an explanation of what I've actually been doing, along with the rationale, see my conversation with L'Aquatique. Ilkali ( talk) 22:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that god contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The 'one god' is omnipotent and all-pervading, the universe is part of god, and god is both immanent and transcendent.
- However, in dualistic theologies as that of Gnosticism, the two deities are not of equal rank, and the role of the Gnostic demiurge is closer to that of Satan in Christian theology than that of a diarch on equal terms with god (who is represented in pantheistic fashion, as Pleroma).
Hi. Thanks for notifying us about this content discussion/dispute. Feel free to continue the discussion at the article talk page or thru suitable WP:DR mechanisms. This WikiProject page doesn't need more of the content discussion, though do please leaves links to any other pages where the discussion might occur. Take care, HG | Talk 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I just made this suggestion on Talk:Rabbinic_literature on the accessibility of that category for 'outsiders', but considering that particular talk page is pretty quiet, if not dead, I thought it might be wise to post it here as well to ensure it is seen by people who can do something with it. Please see Talk:Rabbinic_literature#Suggestion.
Regards,
Anonymous / 82.156.55.208 ( talk) 23:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There has been a change in the Template:Antisemitism from this [10] to this [11]. Any comments on which version seems better would be appreciated here [12]. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently came across this article about the first official female rabbi; however, it looks to be in rather poor shape and could certainly stand to be expanded given the historical nature of her life and work. Does anyone who knows more about her life want to give it a whirl? Thought it might make a good community project here, perhaps even work it up to FA status eventually. Just a suggestion, -- Wassermann ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous users are trying to insert the canard that goy means cattle. Please keep your eyes out for this. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 12:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rather heavily edited over the past couple of days by one editor. I think it would be a good idea for some members of this project to get involved there. Our only other member who's been there recently (besides myself) is LisaLiel, who is at the disadvantage of being under arbcom restrictions. I reverted a long series of Pico's edits because I thought such wholesale changes should be discussed on the talk page. He declined to do so and (as far as I can tell) put the changes back. I'll be frank and say that the reason Pico's editing concerns me is the fact that he made this edit to Exodus, claiming that it's some kind of established archeological fact that the Exodus never happened, a claim which I regard as absurd on its face. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a disambiguation page, Joshua ben Nun, to which I've added a query: is this correct? I've always seen and heard bin Nun, but the page for Joshua in English makes no mention of this. There isn't even a redirect page for "Joshua bin Nun" at present. An authoritative answer and, if necessary, comprehensive corrections, would be of great help. (I need this for editing the Battle of Latrun page.) -- Many thanks, Deborahjay ( talk) 03:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the redirect, but my posting here is a request for authoritative clarification of which name should be used in all references to Joshua, and how to accomplish any further editing reflecting this. I'm not a Bible scholar but conduct plenty of infosearches (web and library) for my translation work and editing WP, and my difficulty in clarifing this elsewhere indicates to me that others too may benefit by adding this info to the Joshua page and related ones. (I may resort to the Encyclopedia Judaica once I get back to the office tomorrow.)-- Deborahjay ( talk) 05:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some editors here to take a look at Jewish religious movements, particularly the table. In it, we're confidently informed that what Americans and Canadians call Reform Judaism is about equivalent on the liberal/conservative spectrum to what the British call Liberal Judaism. On the other hand, British Reform Judaism is more like American Reconstructionist Judaism. I just wonder whether there's any source for any of this, or is it just a load of original research? I left a brief note at the talk page, but it doesn't seem to get much traffic, so I thought I'd bring it here. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a section in this article entitled "The Christian Trinity and the prohibition against idolatry". Leaving aside the inappropriate polemecizing of Christian views in an article about a Jewish (and Noachide) concept, this section is entirely original research. Furthermore, it cites Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in an out of context manner to make it seem as though he is saying something he objects to. I e-mailed Rabbi Telushkin to check with him about this, and he was appalled that he would be misrepresented this way.
All of this has been dealt with in the article on Shituf. It appears that the same editor who had been insisting on doing this in that article is trying to do it here as well.
I really don't want to get into a conflict with him again. I hope that some of you can come and help out. - LisaLiel ( talk) 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This biography has been recently rewritten to coincide with the anniversary of their death on November 27 as well as a feature film on them released around the same date. While awaiting further research material on request from libraries as well as some licensing for images it is now in a peer review. Other editors are welcome to offer constructive feedback and assistance. -- Banjeboi 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There's an editor who is inserting original research into this article, and using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm limited to a 1RR, so I'd appreciate it if someone could drop by and help. Here's the diff of his changes: [13]. - LisaLiel ( talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW -- I just checked the user's contribs, and there are a number of pages involved in similar edits. I posted a note on his talk page, and I'll try to talk to him about some of the other pages involved when he replies. Right now I've just given him a welcome with a couple of pointers. I haven't looked at the other pages in detail yet. I don't know if they've been reverted. Seems like good faith, but newbie, edits with OR and a specific interest in the Divine Name. Tim ( talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to follow up, the user in question has been confirmed to be a sock of a previously blocked user. The edits from all of the socks have left a good bit of debris in a number of articles. We need to clean out the problems remaining in the articles edited by the following socks:
It's important that we can create a stable version of each article so that additional socks can be easily reverted to a known stable form. Yahweh was one of the affected articles, and there are several others. Can we have some help eyeballing the articles and catching anything fringe that needs to be set aside? Thanks.
Also, kudos to Lisa for being the first to catch the newest sock. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)