:::: If my opinion is that an RfC should be closed down then that is my opinion. I fail to understand why that merits hostility from you or anyone else. On a more general note, however, instead of justifying your hostility you might try simply toning it down. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: If my opinion is that an RfC should be closed down then that is my opinion. I fail to understand why that merits hostility from you or anyone else. On a more general note, however, instead of justifying your hostility you might try simply toning it down. Cheers.[[User:Griswaldo|Griswaldo]] ([[User talk:Griswaldo|talk]]) 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Griswaldo recently has had "interactions" with User:Orangemike, User:Nealdowntome123 and I wouldn't be surprised if this "interesting" post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnupam&action=historysubmit&diff=452348567&oldid=452289669] at User:Anupam's talk resulted in some kind of action. I am unfamiliar with this editor. Is it possible his account has been compromised? – [[user:Lionelt|Lionel]] <sup>([[user talk:Lionelt|talk]])</sup> 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Request for input in discussion forum
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)
Palestinian rabbis was kept with an overwhelming majority of 13 votes to 2. A victory for common sense and adherence to WP:RS and WP:NCCN. Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This attitude is uncalled for.Mzk1 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orthodox rabbis
While Medieval rabbis may fall within the sphere of Orthodoxy, some claim the term should not be applied to them as the term is generally used to distinguish between what became a necessity after the rise of reform "rabbis" in the 19th cent. Should we be placing classical rabbis such as Rashi in Category:Orthodox rabbis? Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This question has bothered me as well upon occasion. Perhaps we should have "orthodox" only for the modern Orthodox Judaism movement, and use simply "rabbis" for all other time periods and the present chareidi rabbis? Debresser (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. The concept of "orthodoxy" dates from the 19th century. I would have great problems applying the label to anyone before that time. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second the motion on not retroactively applying modern labels to rabbi. It is the wiki-equivalent of the kids books with Moshe in a black hat. The question is a valid one: how do we label a rabbi who's philosophy or religious practice or halachic rulings are the basis of a given community in a way that shows the connection to that community. Maybe this is not the place for Wiki-Categories? Joe407 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed various discussions at the relevant talk page, but don't think this was covered. AFAIC, no medieval or earlier rabbis should be categorised as "Orthodox", a term which should be applied to rabbis from the mid 19th- cent onwards. Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts "Haredi" and "Modern Orthodox" are even more recent, but they can adequately be a subcategory of "Orthodox rabbis".
With regards to Early Acharonim, I would disconnect the concept from Orthodoxy completely.
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, with members of Category:Orthodox Jews. Nobody before the mid-19th century should be placed in that category, for reasons stated. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to be the correct course of action. Editors, is there consensus for this? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No! We must wait for the valued opinion of IZAK on the matter. He usually has the veto round here. If he is against, we just cannot proceed. The 100% agreement here will be compromised and that will be that. Chesdovi (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with not applying the label orthodox (or sub cats thereof) to people who lived before it was an existent term.Joe407 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is a similar situation in christianity when using the word "catholic" before the various protestant splits in northern europe..? Casliber (talk· contribs) 00:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not because I think it is incorrect, but because it destroys consensus, which is to take no position on how far back Orthodoxy goes. The same would apply to Rabbinic, Pharisaic Judaism, etc. c.f. Jewish religious movements).Mzk1 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New stub: Tachlifa the Palestinian
Tachlifa the Palestinian - 3rd generation amora!
Tachlifa the Palestinian is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Word "Palestinian" has been removed from this article, per reason I mentioned in the editsummary. Article has been moved to Tachlifa of the West, which as the creator wrote himself, is the correct name for this amora. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both names are "correct". I decided to go with "the Palestinian". If you want to change it, you should know the procedure by now. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just type "Tachlifa" in Google, and see for yourself. Editors, please let's put a stop to this POV pushing. Will nobody warn this editor, so we can open a Rfc-user comment? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, why don't you stick with "Jewish Amora sage of the Land of Israel" like in the article Rabbi Aha? Which has been the consensus formula for a year and a half! That is consensus. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More like stick with Tanhuma bar Abba - "a Palestinian amora of the 5th generation" - which has been the "consensus" for 4 ½ years. Don't fob me off with these type of answers. Give me consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New stub: Avdimi of Haifa
Avdimi of Haifa - 3rd generation amora!
Avdimi of Haifa is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Word "Palestinian" has been removed from this article, per reason I mentioned in the editsummary. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer audaciousness (chutzpah) of fixing a BAD edit with another BAD edit. Undid both. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New stub: Abba of Jaffa
Take a deep breath - it's Abba of Jaffa!
Abba of Jaffa is the latest addition to our collection of Palestinian amoraim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late notice, but this is scheduled for OTD appearance on August 30 but is going to be omitted for lack of references. Hopefully y'all can get this into shape in two days. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have started with some minor rewrites. And the removal of something that was not in the source given and actually quite wrong, regrettably removing the only reference this article had. So now all we have to do is find some sources. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some 4 references, which I hope will do the trick. But frankly, there is still too much unreferenced content. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New stub: Hanan the Egyptian
All the way from Alexandria - Hanan the Egyptian!
Hanan the Egyptian is the latest addition to our collection of Egyptian tannaim. Help expanding this stub will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aharon Kotler
Aharon Kotler has been put up for deletion. Needs help with Sources please help if you can.Nerguy (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as speedy keep. Thanks also to Alansohn for his many sourced additions to the article. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nahum the Mede is the latest addition to our collection of Medean tannaim. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are Medean tannaim? Debresser (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New article: Simeon the Yemenite
Simeon the Yemenite - 2nd-century Yemenite tanna!
Simeon the Yemenite is the latest addition to our series on tannaim who originated in the diaspora. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You again tried to push your "Palestine" propaganda twice in that article. Removed, of course.
In addition, it is unclear whether you named the article correctly. The article shows, even though you downplayed it and I had to sharpen this point a little, that he was most likely not HaTeimani but HaTimni, in which case this title is wrong. Don't know what to do with that. Any suggestions? Debresser (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quesion. See your additions to Template:Tannaim that you have been creating articles about one Babylonian, one Egyptian, one Medean and one Yemenite scholar. And then there was amongst the amoraimTachlifa of the West whom you tried to call "Tachlifa the Palestinian". Is there some point you are trying to make here? Debresser (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but I think the point Chesdovi is making is that Palestine & Palestinian are terms with historical meaning other than referring to the area of the 20th century British Mandate or the Arabs who did/are inhabiting land areas that are subject to dispute vis-a-vi the Arab-Israeli conflict et al. Joe407 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Palestinian Amoroaim, I have recently been involved in expanding the projects series on on tannaim/amoraim who originated in the diaspora, a very interesting subject matter. Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you are doing a wonderful job! Your habitual pushing of the word "Palestinian" notwithstanding. And I say this without bad feelings. Perhaps we have some award for the creation of these interesting articles and stubs? Debresser (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I feel like throwing up? Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because you find it harder to apply Leviticus 19:18 in your personal life than I do. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New article: Yadua the Babylonian
It's no accident - it's Yadua the Babylonian!
Yadua the Babylonian is the latest addition to our series on tannaim who originated in the diaspora. Help expanding this article will be greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work everyone! Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, look, I have a trumpet. Guess what, I can blow it too. Pwaaap! JFW | T@lk 22:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we launch a Jewish history newsletter similar to The Bugle? Chesdovi (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Article Request
Hachnosas Sefer Torah, I think this article would be a great addition to Wikipedia, if anyone knowledgeable enough can write it, that'd be great. The Terminatorptc 22:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has changed a bunch of spellings at Template:Kehuna and Kohanim – oddly enough the day after I made an edit to the Template. I'm far from an expert in these matters, but I did notice that one of his changes, Pinchas→Phineas, appears to be wrong, as the primary spelling used in the article is Phinehas. I'm guessing this page here gets more traffic than the Template's Discussion page, so it's probably more appropriate to leave this message here to attract attention.—Biosketch (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. The correct article is Phinehas, not Phineas about some Greek. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was a glitsch, in correcting wikilinking to dozens of articles, Ahron → Aaron, Egel haZahav → Golden Calf, Beit HaMikdash → Temple in Jerusalem, etc. occasional mistake inevitable. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general. This edit was made by In ictu oculi (talk· contribs), who has been anglicising Hebrew terms and names in many articles of late. Do we think this is the correct thing to do? Debresser (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been something I've been meaning to make time for for a couple of months since first encountering a crop of Hebrew spellings on Melchizedek in May, claiming "Malchitzadak" as a kohen and have had discussions with the editor who made those changes, and also is responsible for the crop of other "kehuna" edits, templates, new pages. I've added Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) to the Talk pages on most, if not all, of those articles. I hate to say this but WP:RS does not substantiate "kehuna" as an English term, the term is "priesthood", as per JPS, Jewish Encyclopedia, or western culture/English language in general, and e.g. search Google Books, where, interestingly, the second hit was The ABC's of God 2010 Page 211 "You may be familiar with the Beach Boys' song, mentioning God as the “Big Kehuna”. This Kehuna word, while you may think it is Hawaiian, derives from Hebrew word, Cohen, or priest of God, ןהכ. See you knew more Hebrew than you thought!" which illustrates the problem; most en.wikipedia users probably are going to think this template is Hawaiian. Admittedly there's a problem in that priesthood in Ancient Israel is distinct in English from the status quo Kohen (Hebrew: כהן מוחזק) where Hebrew is essential, as the kohenim of Baal illustrate, since no one would translate Kohen of Baal, so some common sense needs to be applied. But more importantly, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) per WP:RS use Hebrew only for certain terms, like shofar, while more generic items like angel (Judaism), priestly breastplate, heave offering, High Priest (Judaism), are in English. WP:RS needs to be the arbiter on a case by case basis. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely my point. Many editors have decided in the past to use certain Hebrew terms, and now you come along and change a great many of them to English words. I think that words like "kohen", or "Beit HaMikdash" are terms that can be explained once in the lead of an article, and then used in the text. And the reason is that the English equivalents are often imprecise. A "kohen" is not the same as a Christian priest in function, and the "Beit HaMikdash" is not just a temple for visit and worship, etc. I really think you are taking a wrong way here. It may be that in some article there are to many Hebrew terms, but in general IMHO it is better to have a well-described Hebrew term, than an ill-fitting English one. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debresser, well overall on Wikipedia "many editors" have dictated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which indicates that WP:RS is the standard. Unlike Priestly Blessing (2006) etc., most of these "kehuna" articles are new creations in the last couple of months by Marecheth Ho'eElohuth and don't have multiple editor input, far from it. That's part of the problem.
3. The new Kehuna template has already been changed to "Priesthood in Judaism" - the new Category hasn't.
The new template and new category represents a special case problem. Since a priest of Ancient Israel was similar to the kohen Melchizedek or kohenim of Baal or kohenim of Dagon "in function," but not similar to modern Kohenim "in function." Evidently Priesthood (Catholic Church) is somewhat different from Priesthood (Judaism), but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) the question is whether the word "kehuna" or the English word "priesthood" occurs in WP:RS such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, academic sources, etc.
Overall discussion here is good but ultimately application really needs to be on a case by case basis, using the Talk page and WP:RS for each article.
You are right that Marecheth Ho'eElohuth wrote a few articles singlehandedly, and he uses too much Hebrew. Note that I have copyedited quite a few of his articles in the past. All I mean to say is that I think you are also exaggerating a little to the other side. Let's be liberal about this, and change terms from English to Hebrew or from Hebrew to English only when it is really better, not because we have made ourselves some rule. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly articles where the Template should use Hebrew, and some where it should use English. I would imagine the cut off point in many cases is probably where the origin is Ancient Israel vs where the origin is the Mishnah or the Talmud. For example:
If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.
As WP:HEBREW says: usually "h", rarely "ch", and always prefer an accepted spelling if such exists. This explains why we have herem, which is the normal transliteration, and cherem as the accepted transliteration of the term for excommunication. Chromim, as it is derived from "herem", should be "hromim", and I shall presently make the move. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and spelling in that article fixed. That was quite some edit. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned before that we have several articles on Netinim and Givonim (Gibeonites), some only differentiated by spelling. (Note that in the Talmud they are identical; others have them separate.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, searching just now I found Nethinim and Nethinite. I haven't tried Givoni (Gibeonites). In any merge, the traditional Jewish view should be preserved (among other views), namely that they are the same thing, even if they don't all come from Givon. Halachically, they are Rabbinic Mamzrim, although I have not as yet found a source that says the latter explicitly. (The slow pace of the Encyclopedia Talmudit means that certain topics are easier to source than others.)Mzk1 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the 2005 Nethinim was a cut and paste from old Enc Brit with the Protestant/Hebrew/academic "Nethinim" spelling, then the 2006 Nathinites a cut and paste from the old Cath Enc with the Catholic "Nathanites" spelling which has hardly any academic use. Merging the Cath Enc content into Britannica would be fairly straightforward as it's shorter and largely duplicate.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Mzk1, and lack of comment on Talk, I merged under the Hebrew transliteration, since in this case Google Books / Google Scholar clearly supported the Hebrew over the Anglicized version. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boy does this article need work. Any takers? And I found another one, Natin. Would it make sense to merge with Gibeonite?Mzk1 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: good article but unreferenced – Tiszaeszlár Affair. I'll try to work on it, but probably not this week.—Biosketch (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref'd to the JE? Chesdovi (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was/is an assertion in the Dor Daim article (oddly in ref footnote, which is a bit OR) that the pronunciation Dardaim was offensive to Yemeni Jews.... but WP:RS sources in Google Books are clearly with Dardaim, as appears to be he.wikipedia. This is an area why WP:RS perhaps shouldn't be applied rigidly, if a certain pronunciation really is offensive to the group being described. Does any one have any source, even a blog, which would clarify whether this is OR or fact? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I have always been a bit wary of this template which appears in many articles - what's its use? Based on a Hebrew version, I view it as needless clutter. Unless there would be a way to enbold the era in which the subject was part of (as in other templates), I say consign it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no reply to this after 7 days, yet a certain editor re-adds it to a page after I removed it citing: "Should not be removed without general consensus". If the status-quo is to remain, it should be discussed here, not enforced by one editor against another. Chesdovi (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WPJ Activism Alert
Help save Lviv's Golden Rose!
The Golden Rose Synagogue in Lviv, Ukraine was designated a World Heritage Site in 1998. Built in 1582, it was one of the oldest and most beautiful synagogues in Europe. Having survived Nazi desecration, the Ukrainian authorities have now allowed it to be demolished to make space for a new hotel! This blatant destruction of a Jewish historic site must be stopped at all costs! Does anyone know how we can make our voices heard? Chesdovi (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of the Talmud
I'd like to ask for more eyes on Talk:Criticism_of_the_Talmud#Reverting_article_vandalism. This was an article created and edited almost exclusively by Noleander that I reverted to a redirect months ago. In the last two days two brand new accounts have shown up and in their first five edits reverted to Noleander's version. (Apologies for dragging Noleander's name through the mud, but the situation is what it is.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into a bit of confusion the other day over the categorization of a non-denominational yeshiva in Canada, and wanted to ask you guys a question: is there actually a specific reason why the general Category:Yeshivas categories (except for a couple that I created just now) exist only as category redirects to Category:Orthodox yeshivas rather than as standalone categories? I realize that the majority of yeshivas are associated with Orthodox Judaism, but it's clear that there are at least a few which aren't — meaning that we really do need to have categories for non-Orthodox yeshivas too. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought from above that we could continue to use the following:
If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English-language, we should follow the sources and use it. If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.
The addition of (English in brackets) in most cases leaving the Hebrew except where the article itself is named in English not Hebrew here is intended to be a help to the typical Wikipedia user who will not read Hebrew, or they'd be using he.wikipedia Please put yourself in the position of a Wikipasserby who stumbles on one of these Ritual purity in Judaism (which is already a mouthful) articles and wants to navigate, and sees a template in Polish saying:
Czystości i nieczystości.
Mycia rąk.
Miesiączki.
Choroby skóry.
Pleśni.
Nocnej emisji.
Odpływ z pochwy.
Nieczyste obiektu.
Zanieczyszczenie ziemi narodów.
Kontakt z martwym ciałem.
All I did was add English in brackets:
Mycia rąk (washing of hands)
And that was less than WP:EN since many of these terms in WP:RS are described in English. Only half or less of these terms feature in the JE, EJ, JPS Tanakh, SBL texts. By normal WP standards page moves should have happened for half of these terms, to both not move them, and to remove bracketed English translations giving the WP:EN (generally I tried to follow WP:RS via Google books when adding them) makes WP less user-friendly, and goes against WP:EN. I ask you to reconsider, that English may be helpful to some en.wikipedia users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been pointed out that the translations of many terms are not precise. In addition, it is not uncommon to use accepted and short technical terms, once they have been properly introduced in an article. And additional indication can be that such has been common practice in many Judaism-related articles, even though I agree with you that sometimes it was overdone. Also, you should take the visual aspect into account. Adding all those translations for terms that are anyways linked, makes a template ugly rather quickly. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Well we'll see what others say I guess. I personally don't see that Mycia rąk (washing of hands) is aesthetically unpleasing compared to Mycia rąk on its own. As for precision Google Books in this specific case supports WP:RS for "washing of hands" and "washing the hands" but doesn't give WP:RS support for "Netilat yadayim." - and Netilat yadayim redirects to an English Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Washing_the_hands anyway... In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB "once they have been properly introduced in an article." - sure, but we're talking about how does the non-Hebrew speaker even find the article in the first place without English translations? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really oppose this. Just the titles of the pages that are being linked. Per the "keep it simple" principle, and for nicer layout. Debresser (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following a Sept 2 note on Talk:Korban Olah, re WP:EN and WP:RS (211,000 GB hits ; vs 8,460 for whole offering vs 111 for Korban Olah). Again this page is another of User:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's article creations, as the 2 templates above, in this case created from 17 February 2007 Dbachmann Redirect to whole offering. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly gets 211,000 Ghits, though? Certainly not "burnt offering (Judaism)", and "burnt offering" produces tens of thousands of false positives. In addition, one should really be searching for +Korban +Olah. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See sections above on templates, where I have raised similar concerns. Debresser (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can either deal with this on a case by case basis, or maybe we should review all of relevant article/template/category creations in the last 6 months vs WP:EN and WP:RS.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with this one, since that's what's been raised here. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg. Okay, but please let's start with the main point: does anyone on this Project board not support WP:EN+WP:RS in subjects related to Ancient Israel? Beause if not there's not much point debating how many of 211,000 hits for "burnt offering" and how many of the 111 hits for "korban olah" are "false positives." In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chesdovi, fortunately I'm staying out of "sticky" areas, which means any term originating post 70CE. As far as I know Minyan and Tzoah Rotachat don't occur in ANE or Second Temple era sources, so there's unlikely to be the clean-cut WP:RS weight for WP:EN that a term like burnt offering, heave offering or priestly covenant has. In general. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see strong consensus for this, and the move puts the article name at odds with Korban and Korban Pesach, the two related articles. I'm moving it back, pending a stronger consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the correct thing to do. I feel the English terms are more awkward than the Hebrew ones. Just as we don't move Harakiri (Seppuku) to Ritual suicide (Japanese). Debresser (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, with respect, what you feel about the use of English language for terms relating to Ancient Israel is not part of WP:IRS. WP:EN is a general policy established for all of Wikipedia, for all Wikipedia users. "korban olah" has 97 hits compared to 74,700 for ["burnt offering" + Bible]. Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) is based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. (FWIW as far as Seppuku is concerned Seppuku has 26,900 hits compared to 6,170 for ["ritual suicide" +Japan] on Google Books so not a justification for supporting a naming with 97 hits against 74,700. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, I thank you for your respect. And reply in kind. You are right. That example was meant more like an illustration of the possible and inherent awkwardness of translations of certain terms.
The two main reasons to want to keep most of the Hebrew terms are.
The translations are not always accurate. E.g. the word "kohen" is always translated "priest". But the word "priest" is a christian term with a different meaning than the word "kohen". Or did you ever see a catholic priest bring a "korban olah"?
These terms haven't been in use in English very much. Certainly not outside of translations of Hebrew texts and some academic discussion. I'd like to make a point per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#No_established_usage that such is not enough to say that there is an English term which is equivalent to the Hebrew one. Debresser (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debresser,
Good that we are keeping this at mutual respect. I do like you :).
1. "priest" isn't a "Christian term" it's an English term in English "priest" means an officiating priest of any religion - pagan, Hindu, Ancient Israel, Ancient Egypt, just as kohen in Hebrew is not a Jewish term, the kohenim of Baal, the kohenim of Dagon, the kohen of Egypt, these are all pagan kohenim. Yes the term komer also exists for Nestorian/Catholic clergy, but the basic meaning of kohen in Hebrew is still priest. It isn't just the Hebrew Bible, modern Hebrew also has phrases like הכהן ההינדי ha-kohen ha-Hindu.
2. "These terms haven't been in use in English very much" - You mean the Hebrew terms haven't been in use in English very much till the 1970s? Yes I know, but that's the whole point of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), no they haven't. http://books.google.com/advanced_book_search - though I've been reminded that results deteriorate after 1000. JSTOR and Athens searches don't have the same software problem - but then they're restricted to those with passwords and have a different data pool. This is the thing, en.Wikipedia is not Artscrollpedia it is not our job to re-engineer the English language. I admit there are cases when a bit of linguisitic/social reengineering is worthwhile - but these sacrificial terms aren't part of them since modern kohens don't sacrifice animals - Adin Steinsaltz' attempt to do so notwithstanding.
Bear in mind also that korban Olah was a REDIRECT to whole offering anyway before our friend M. Ho'eElohuth came and created his article there. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I agree with you in the specific case of the "korban olah". Although not in the case of "kohen". In just want to point out we should start translating all Hebrew terms. That there are some good reasons to keep some of the articles at the Hebrew term. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Debresser, I've said this before 3 times, but happy to say it again :) :) :). I am not proposing a move of kohen. It's evident that in the bulk of modern WP:RS kohen refers to the status of a family/caste in post-Temple Judaism. I also noted before that I started a small article Priesthood (Ancient Israel) which links to Kohen in the second sentence, and which I would have thought fills the gap and voids any possible future proposal to tamper with the kohen article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I note that in objecting to the move to WP:EN here on this forum, and linking to it, that you have failed here and on the Talk page to declare that you have apparently gone through the article changing "burnt offering" to "korban olah" whereever it occurs. You may wish to note that many of those sentences where you have inserted "korban olah" actually have (8x) the ref to the Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 article Burnt Offering by Morris Jastrow Jr.J. Frederic McCurdyKaufmann KohlerLouis Ginzberg which predominantly uses English, so you are changing the English into Hebrew counter the stated refs. I have reinserted one of the removed "burnt offering" with the full Jewish Encyclopedia 1912 "Burnt Offering" article title reference, please do not remove it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: This is not, and I repeat, not, Artscrollpedia! Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu, I'm pretty sure it was you who first went through the article changing various references to "Olah" etc. to "burnt offering".[2] I merely brought the article in line with the WP:MOS, by making the wording in the article match the article name. If the article name is changed, the article wording can be changed to match it. And I didn't "remove" an instance of "burnt offering", I merely moved it to the proper location in the lede. You, on the other hand, kept making the lede non-complaint with WP:LEDE. Please stop. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayjg, of course, I absolutely certainly definitely surely unapologetically 100% was the editor who changed "burnt offering" (a) per Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) and (b) per all the sentences with Jewish Encyclopedia "Burnt Offering" article as the ref, prior to renaming. In fact generally I was quite happily editing along following WP:EN and WP:RS until your object/revert/oppose. However this is a collegiate process, you are entitled to your view, and thank you for having restored "Jewish Encyclopedia - article Burnt Offering" in the footnotes. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to Ezekiel as Yechezkel and Jerusalem as Yerushalayim is outrageous. What is this, Jewishwiki? Please stop this MH. Chesdovi (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is nothing, you should have seen some of the other articles. 90% of the articles/templates/categories I've been trying to get to WP:EN over the last 3 months have been User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's work (the other 10% are junk DNA from a similar set of edits by someone else back in 2006, noted in transit). I have tried pointing out WP:EN, and to be fair so has Debresser, and Debresser has proofread and reverted some of the most bizarre edits, but Marecheth Ho'eElohuth just won't listen. He's been invited here to this project page. In some ways it's rather sad, because en.Wikipedia is desperately lacking articles on Tabernacle/Temple religious practices, and priesthood in Ancient Israel. It's also interesting to see the Malbim etc commentary on this (Could live without the Third Temple pushing, but whatever). If only Marecheth HoElohuth would accept WP:EN and WP:RS it'd actually be a useful set of contributions. In all fairness this does happen in other fields, there are constant attempts to hoist Greek/Latin/Old Church Slavonic on Christianity articles and Arabic-for-the-sake of it on Islam ones too. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Marecheth Ho'eElohuth continues to disregard policy and thinks wikipedia is some kind of Jewish/Hebrew website, he should be sanctioned. "Yerushalayim"! Good heavens. (It's like using "Eretz Yisrael" instead of Palestine!) Chesdovi (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start being hysterical about this. I am sure a post on his talkpage will do the job. Chesdovi, you must have meant '"Eretz Yisrael" instead of "Land of Israel"'. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone being hysterical... but there isn't a massive rush to support Wikipedia Naming conventions or WP:RS either. In any case all editors should give the benefit of the doubt to non-native English speakers and be charitable/friendly. He has tried to entitle some article creations in English: such as Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead (with the dead?), Giving of the foreleg, cheeks and abomasum, The Mitzvah of sanctifying the Kohen (not clear what subject is), The Torah instruction of the Kohanim (= the priests are to teach the Law to others? or be taught by the Law?) where a rename for grammar reasons rather than WP:EN and WP:RS might be suggested. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the actual subject matters created by Marecheth Ho'eElohuth are welcomed, but another glaring issue is the addition of material cited to primary sources. That also needs to be addressed. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After being posted a link to view this discussion (thanks In ictu oculi) I must say I dindn't think i was this popular! :-). I appreciate the positive comments posted above and the bright criticism's. I have taken EN usage to heart and will in the future implement them in future edits to my ability. Please note though that -in terms of "archaic" usage- user In ictu oculi seems to be hung up on some ancient form of English translation of the bible that is riddled with errors upon errors upon errors.. hinting to him about more accurate translations available has been done, and at this point, im uncertain as to whether those hints have found receptivity--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, I'm glad your finally here. I did invite you here twice. But you are again making edits today which are against Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). You say for example RS usage is specifically "Kohanim sons of Tzadok" but this gets 0 results on Google Scholar, so what WP:IRS English language published sources with an ISBN do you refer to? The English spelling "Sons of Zadok" with "priest" 648 resultsIn ictu oculi (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB see Chesdovi's comment above about "Ezekiel as Yechezkel and Jerusalem as Yerushalayim" - this is en.wikipedia. Do you accept the use of English spellings here? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the side, what is this hangup with ISBN? Lots of Jewish books probably don't have them, and I see nothing about it in IRS. Jewish scholarship is quite different from Christian, and I would thank you not to apply those rules to us. (It's enough to see Christian thoelogical terms like triumphalism, for example.) I can see Jerusalem instead of Yerushayim, but I haven't seen any consistency regarding how to spell a tzade, chet or chof. I just try to fit the page I am using, but I have seen, for example, Chupah go back and forth. Similarly, kohen is often used instead of priest, as they are not the same concept (neither is a Navi a prophet, or the book of Daniel would be in the prophets, although he was one himself), and most people "outside" would likely think you meant a Rabbi.Mzk1 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mzk1, I do not understand the comment ""most people "outside"" - most people outside what?
ISBN isn't a "hang up", given the problem, I am simply indicating to a newish editor how he can support Wikipedia policy on naming conventions, spelling, use of English, sources, references, original research and NPOV? The point of ISBNs is the bearing on the below from WP:IRS and specific bearing on WP:NOR and WP:SPS.
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
It's isn't that "lots of Jewish books don't have them" - since evidently if they are published "with a reliable publication process" they do have ISBNs, the point is that (1) given that Marecheth Ho'eElohuth's refs are mainly primary OR sources, with no author, no editor, no title, no language, no year, no publisher, the ISBN would be an easy and convenient way of providing author, editor, title, language, year, and publisher. The second point is (2) that lots of self-published sectarian books (whether Jewish/Mormon/Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Buddhist/atheist/agnostic) don't have them. This comment "Jewish scholarship is quite different from Christian, and I would thank you not to apply those rules to us" (who exactly is "us"?) is ill-informed. For every WP:SPS from Jewish sources there would inevitably be 10x or 100x as many WP:SPS sectarian /Mormon/Catholic/Protestant/ etc. sources, the point is WP:IRS exists to prevent articles sources from sources which are generated from such sources.
Regarding the specific comment relating to the reverts and removal of English from Kohanim sons of Zadok the comment "Similarly, kohen is often used instead of priest" - please see Google Scholar, this is evidently not correct:
...not that I'd be opposed to Family Tree DNA - Cohen Zadokites being mentioned in the article if that is what is driving this series of article-creations.
On the basis of Google Scholar WP:RS do not use the Hebrew word kohen to refer to the kohen Melchizedek or the kohen Jethro or the kohenim of Baal or Dagan, nor to priests Ancient Israel. Instead of being "often" used in WP:RS, on the contrary it is never used except second to English "priest."
But again that isn't the main problem with Kohanim sons of Zadok etc, the main issue is the these articles are built from original research, primary sources, and contrary to WP:EN. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting, WP:EN, WP:PSTS, and linking when adding Primary Sources to ref footnotes
At the very least if publication years, editions, ISBNs, languages, are not going to added the sources should at least be wikilinked so that Wikireaders can click through to the primary sources:
NOT 3. ^ Midrash ha-Gadol to Bereishit 6:4 et al.
BUT 3. ^ Midrash HaGadol on Genesis 6:4, in Mordecai Margulies, editor and introduction, Midrash haggadol on the Pentateuch. Genesis. Edited From the Various Manuscripts Mosad Haraw Kook, Jerusalem 1947, reprinted 1975. ISBN.
This is what happens when these refs are wikilinked:
54. ^ Additional aspects disproving that association include a Chazalic mention that the Sadduccee and Boethusian groups favored using vessels of Gold and Silver whereas the common vessel usage of Kohanim -to negate transmission of Tumah- where typically of stone
There is an Rfc ongoing at Talk:Palestine#Historic_designation_of_the_Palestine_region, which touches upon the question of whether and how to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles like articles about Jewish sages. A link to this discussion has been posted above, but so far few have replied, and none from WikiProject Judaism. I'd like to remind you that this Rfc will likely determine in large measure the future use of these terms on Wikipedia, so it is important to partake in this discussion while it is ongoing. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This message violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:CANVASS in both "message" and "audience." The question being discussed is much more general than the one Debresser is concerned with, though I appreciate the fact that the RfC proposer may also have had this narrower concern in mind. When posting these types of messages please try to make them as succinct and neutral as possible. Do not intimate or state why something should be important to a certain group of people (in this case Wikiproject:Judausm members). OK? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The original poster also asked for comment from this forum. I just came to remind people. In addition, the wording of this notice is completely neutral. Also, the issue of this Rfc is a continuation of other discussions that have also all been posted here. No canvassing here. Seek third-party advise, if you like. You are welcome to strike your comment, thanks, Debresser (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How gracious, but I will not strike my comment. You and the "original poster" have been haggling over whether or not to call certain rabbis "Palestinian" in this venue, in several threads above. That much is true, yes. But the RfC is framed in a manner that covers a much more general topic than that, as I already stated. When you canvassed this board you framed the question in terms of the narrower matter that you and Chesdovi have been haggling over, and stressed how important it is for people from this project to weigh in. I'm sorry that's not neutral or unbiased. You are welcome to refactor your original post. I'd suggest something like: "There is an ongoing RfC about the use of the word Palestine when describing the geographic region of present day Israel in different historical periods. Participation is welcome." As I stated above, when you start ascribing reasons for why this discussion should be important to people here you're crossing the boundaries of a non-neutral message. This isn't a particularly bad violation of CANVASS at all, don't get me wrong, but it still crosses the line.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the Rfc is broader in scope. Which is why I used the word "touches upon", when describing why that discussion should be of interest to people here. And that needs to be mentioned, because that is the connection with this WikiProject. So sorry, I still think the wording I used is the best possible one. Feel welcome to ask third-party advice before reposting. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Griswaldo, the people who monitor and/or comment at this board are certainly not all WP:Judaism members. What makes you think the "audience" here would be an inappropriate one to comment? Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did I say it was "an inappropriate one to comment?" There is no inappropriate audience to comment on anything on Wikipedia, and the canvassing policy has nothing to do with appropriate audiences in those terms, but which audiences it is appropriate to request input from, especially when worded in certain ways. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why does the "audience" at WP:JUDAISM violate "the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:CANVASS"? Why is it not "appropriate to request input from" WP:JUDAISM on this subject? Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser chose only this audience to encourage participation from. In his appeal to this audience he condensed a more general question into a specific one -- the question of whether and how to use the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in Judaism-related articles like articles about Jewish sages. It is no secret that like most religion Wikiprojects most of the participants here are members of the faith. It is also rather obvious that people who are religiously Jewish are going to be much more supportive of Debresser's side of the argument, especially when it is presented to them in this manner - the idea that a "Jewish sage" might be labelled "Palestinian" if they do not speak up. Do I have to spell it out further? Soliciting opinions at RfCs from groups of editors who you think are like-minded to yourself is not OK, especially when you word your solicitation in a manner that isn't neutral. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who read WP:JEW are not necessarily Jews, and, even if Jews, certainly not necessarily religious. The very person who Debresser is having this dispute with, however, appears to be both. It is therefore odd at best to claim that "this audience" and "people who are religiously Jewish are going to be much more supportive of Debresser's side of the argument". If you want to object to the wording of the notice, feel free, but please don't stereotype. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move related to this project
This requested move of the page Korban Olah to "Burnt offering (Bible)" may be of interest to those participating here. Comments are welcome.Griswaldo (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Griswaldo, perhaps you take it easy... You seem to be overly active of late. This was linked already above. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A general discussion is above, and the move request is hidden in the middle of it. Since I intended on posting a similar notice at Wikiproject:Religion I figured why not make a clear post about this here as well. Also, what is the meaning of your comment about me being "overly active" and suggestion to "take it easy?" It seems a bit hostile. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the move proposal was outdented and clearly visible.
If I sounded a little hostile it is possibly because of your haste to propose to close a certain Rfc which has seen too little input yet, and your in my opinion unjustified accusation of canvassing above. Anyway, see you around. Have a nice week (traditional Jewish blessing after the ending of the Shabbat). Debresser (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If my opinion is that an RfC should be closed down then that is my opinion. I fail to understand why that merits hostility from you or anyone else. On a more general note, however, instead of justifying your hostility you might try simply toning it down. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Griswaldo recently has had "interactions" with User:Orangemike, User:Nealdowntome123 and I wouldn't be surprised if this "interesting" post [3] at User:Anupam's talk resulted in some kind of action. I am unfamiliar with this editor. Is it possible his account has been compromised? – Lionel(talk) 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New article: Gabriel Esperanssa
Full of hope with Gabriel Esperanssa - our newest 17th-century Palestinian rabbi on the block!!!!!!!!!
I think that all the info that can be added before tomorrow (when this thing actually goes live) has been added. How does it look now? Still a start? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the Talk:Korban Olah proposed move to English an oppose has given the Artscroll Tanakh as a reference RS. Should Artscroll transliteration policy be a reference RS for en.wikipedia, or is it a Primary source? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Artscroll is a renowned publishing house, it's translation rules have considerable influence. Nevertheless, I think this post is really unnecessary, and there is no rule of thumb. Just judge on a case to case basis. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]