Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 36

In the article, it says: "Verse 13 is the tenth verse of "V'hu Rachum" in Pesukei dezimra,^[1] is found in Uva letzion,^[2] and is part of the Havdalah ceremony." and the ref given is "The Complete Artscroll Siddur page 619". Can somebody please rewrite that for people unfamiliar with prayer names in Hebrew (translation, function, frequency ...), and expand the ref? I am confused by the link V'hu Rachum which is only a redirect, and neither this nor psalm 84 is mentioned at all in the linked pages. - Any other help with the article is also highly welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have an terminological question. Shouldn't the articles Tanakh and Hebrew Bible be merged? If not, why not? I'm not too clear on the distinctions. -- Veggies (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Article calls it a lost text and says that "This manuscript is sometimes called Second Isaiah or The Book by the prophet Isaiah". Besides the fact that in my experience there are no manuscripts for lost texts, I can't find evidence that this is correct. I paused to check something and found Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible#Hebrew Bible where the same website is frequently used. Are all of these (and their alternative names) correct. The source used is also cited as , an anonymous page on a fringe Christian website. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I interest anyone here in adopting this abandoned draft? The subject is a professor of Jewish philosophy who has written about medieval theology and translated Jewish polemical texts. I believe the subject is notable but it's probably been written by someone connected with him. I found several book reviews which I will note in the draft. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

The article Devil needs to be reviewed for its accuracy regarding the Devil in Judaism. Thinker78 (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: Thank you for bringing this here. Others could potentially comment.

Here are a couple of suggestions. (I'm reluctant to edit the page myself because I am not really involved there.)

• Add a hatnote pointing to Satan § Judaism. I think the topic is covered better there; certainly, modern belief is covered more thoroughly there.
• I have not read the references in the section (22–24), so I cannot comment thoroughly on the text written on the basis of those references. Still, I would question whether Judaism ever really became fully dualistic in the way the article reads. I have personally never seen a commentary suggesting, for example, that Satan was operating independently of and equally to G-d. Using Job as an example: the fact that G-d seemed to give Satan license to make Job's life miserable has long been troubling to a lot of people traditionally, and is a big reason that many think the Book of Job is entirely allegorical. But even here, Satan acts only after G-d grants permission. So that seems to fall short of "fully dualistic". If the references there support the idea of "fully dualistic", see if you can find a balancing reference that may go in that direction, but that suggests the dualism is not as fully baked as in Zoroastrianism, for example.
• Similarly, unless there's a subtlety here that I'm missing, I think the last sentence of the paragraph as currently construed probably needs to say "After the apocalyptic period references to Satan in Tanakh have come to be thought of as allegorical." (Links and refs can stay, I just didn't bother here.) And the paragraph probably needs to have one additional sentence, at minimum, to try to cover some of the ground currently found at Satan § Judaism.

Hope that helps. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

On the Talk:Nevi'im talk page, I have placed a question about the 'prophets' aspect of the term "Former Prophets". Any takers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussed there. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some conflict of interest occurring on this page, with an anonymous editor Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Responded there. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabs#Arab_jews_2, whether to include Judaism in the infobox, using the argument that Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity. Infantom (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the discussion; "claiming Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity" is a straw man. Please don't read that and get prepared to argue with it, because no-one's saying it, of course. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Project input requested at Talk:Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga#Jew?. Subject is a convert to the Catholic church (circa 1920), who was a NSZ (very antisemitic faction of Polish underground) member during WWII. Some editors are insisting on describing the subject as a Jew and placing the "Polish Jew" cat.Icewhiz (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I listed this first at WikiProject Jewish history, but it seems pretty quiet there. There could be a problem with reliable sources to an edit on Anne Frank. Details here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Commented there. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem With all the editors here having dealt with numerous WP:ARBPIA articles, there is no chance at all any of them will be considered fit for adminship. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Debresser, this is WikiProject Judaism, not WikiProject Israel. Many, perhaps most, of the editors active in this area have never edited an article subject to the ARBPIA restrictions. There are also administrators who are active in that area, so I question your opinion that editing articles subject to ARBPIA restrictions disqualifies an editor from becoming an administrator. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, this is WikiProject Judaism? And here I though this was WikiProject Israel. I must indeed be the moron you seem to think I am. Oh, but wait, many of them are the same editors. Oh, and also, I have been active on Wikipedia for 10 years now, so I know who is active in which fields. Well, then, perhaps I am not that big a moron after all. And please notice the lack of a question mark after this last sentence. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not everybody who belongs to this WikiProject is as experienced and cynical as you are. Nobody should be dissuaded from trying to become an administrator because you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User Snowded and I are in disagreement as to whether "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews Wikipedia page should be wikilinked to the Modern Orthodox article. He has requested sources and I have provided a page from the BBC website containing the link label "United Synagogue, British Modern Orthodox" and an article from The Times describing the United Synagogue as Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) a well as other sources. However, Snowded is not satisfied and has requested further opinions. Please can people go onto Talk:British Jews and give their opinions? Personally I think it's a WP:SKYBLUE issue that "Central Orthodox" is a synonym for Modern Orthodox 95.148.20.9 (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Tricky. The US defines itself as "modern" and "Orthodox" (https://www.theus.org.uk/aboutus) but not modern Orthodox. That's the proper stuff. Now some POV. Few of their rabbis are modern Orthodox and very very few of their members are. It's a very British institution. Solidly Orthodox as an institution, with rabbis who are mostly chareidi and members who are mostly "traditional" or non-practicing. However, I think calling it "central Orthodox" is not supported by RS and to me it's a neologism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Central Orthodox" is the phrase used on the "British Jews" page, presumably because that is the wording on the cited source for the stats on denominational proportions. I agree that "Central Orthodox" was a neologism on the source's part, however I also feel that this should be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox as I feel this is what was broadly meant. Snowded disagrees, so we are seeking other opinions.

(Also just because someone dresses in a way that hints at being Haredi doesn't necessarily make them a Haredi. For one thing, it's more than just a clothing style, there's a whole bigger emphasis on Kaballah in Haredi Judaism, for another thing, MO rabbis may often wear a black pinstripe suit and black trilby but that is still quite distinct from the wider-brimmed hat actual Haredim wear. Many of them also wear ties, (not part of the Haredi uniform) and have neatly trimmed rather than wild bushy beards. More 1930s office wear than 1700s Eastern Europe.) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is tricky but it is part of the family of movements under the Modern Orthodox label and should be labeled as such. British Jewry is unique and the United Synagogue is a Victorian approach that prevented a split for many decades between modern Orthodox and Conservative. After the Jacobs Affair, the new Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jacobovits started using the American phrase Modern Orthodox. As it is today, United Synagogue membership is still traditionalist and less observant than its American counterpart. However, many of the rabbis in congregations has studied in Chabad or Haredi yeshivot or in Hardal Yeshivot. In the US, many Modern Orthodox are now calling themselves, Centrist, Right Wing Modern Orthodox, or just Orthodox to distinguish themselves from Haredi and from the left of modern Orthodoxy. In the UK, a similar move has occurred with the "central Orthodox" name but it has not created separate institutions, organizations or platform that use that title to distinguish it from United Synagogue. Conclusion- it should be listed a form of Modern Orthodoxy, but one can find a context to mention this recent neologism name as part of the recent trends of the 21st century. --Jayrav (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this - it confirms some of my initial worries that adding it a a unifying category was not warranted and potentially confusing or controversial. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hang on tho Snowded, Jayrav said it was "but it is part of the family of movements under the Modern Orthodox label and should be labeled as such." That sounds to me like a vote in favour of Wikilinking "Central Orthodox" to the Modern Orthodox page. And he also put " it is Modern Orthodox" in his edit summary. So what do you reckon then, Jayrav, Wikilink or not Wikilink? 2.28.124.67 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I dont think United Synagogue wants to concede the Modern Orthodox label to the liberal flank, it would be against their own constituency. They would fight that at least tactically. In addition, there are many members in the congregations, many rabbis, and people at LSJS that are liberal who would not be comfortable with a "Central Orthodox" label. We are venturing in original research or original synthesis territory. I am sure that you can indeed find many articles using the neologism term "Central," but they are taking note of of a liberal-central drift in the UK similar to those going on in American Modern Orthodoxy and Israeli Religious Zionism. To treat it as a separate page, category, or a relabel of the United Synagogue as Central is already an original synthesis or predicting the future. United Synagogue is still (1) in the family of movements called by wiki as Modern Orthodox (2)Still its own flavor called United Synagogue. Nevertheless, their own literature has not re-branded themselves as Central. But what these journalists are calling the Central Orthodox institutions should definitely be linked to Modern Orthodox.--Jayrav (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that Central Orthodox is a far less common term in my experience than "Centrist Orthodox" - a group perceived to be the core of American Modern Orthodoxy, at least institutionally. Here are a few links to fleshed out discussions of this: Torah Umadda, op-ed in Times of Israel, Nishma study of American Orthodoxy in 2017, views of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein. Zchai72 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those terms are normative for Anglo Jewry, and the United Synagogue in particular. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Maccabee Elazar. The way it's named implies his surname was "Avaran" which is nonsense, which is the implication his entry in List of unusual deaths took, where it refers to him as "Avaran".

Best I can tell, the "Avaran" comes in a single reference in 1 Maccabees, which says he was also known as Avaran, so it's a nickname. The Hebrew article about him is titled אלעזר החורני (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אלעזר_החורני), a name our article refers to without explanation. I

I can't figure out where HaCharoni comes from and I can't decide which name the article should be in, perhaps Elazar (Avaran), Elazar HaCharoni (if there are RS), Elazar Maccabeus (consistency with Judas Maccabeus), Elazar the Maccabee (POV alert: how I think of him) etc.

Grateful for some learned and wise input. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I see the article was called Elazar Maccabeus and someone in 2014 wanted it changed to Elazar Avaran, but the discussion decided the name should not be changed without a RM. Nonetheless, here we are. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have changed the entry in List of unusual deaths. The article title should probably be discussed in terms of all the relevant "Maccabees" (if that's what they were). The stumbling block is that Judas is almost always known by his Latinised name. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  Good point, thanks. Maybe we can hold one centralised discussion for all of the family. Judah definitely has a COMMON issue that applies to him and none of the others, which will make it fun. Where's the best place to host the conversation? Talk:Judas Maccabeus? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I should say now that I still oppose the move. We've been using the nicknames from 1 Maccabees 2:2-5: "He had five sons, John surnamed Gaddi, Simon called Thassi, Judas called Maccabeus, Eleazar called Avaran, and Jonathan called Apphus" (NRSV). They didn't all have the same nickname! StAnselm (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose which move? There are lots of options presented above. Calling him the current name is the worst option, because no-one ever called him that, not even the source that we get the name Avaran from. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, all of them. It's incorrect to say, "no-one ever called him that": "When Eleazar Avaran saw that one of the elephants was larger than the others..." (1 Macc. 6:43, GNT).

That's interesting but the GNT did not set out to be a direct translation, but, as we say, " "thought for thought" rather than "word for word" and "written in a simple, everyday language, with the intention that everyone can appreciate it, and so is often considered particularly suitable for children and for those learning English". Some more scholarly translations include NRSV ("Now Eleazar, called Avaran") and KJV ("Eleazar also, surnamed Savaran") Weirdly, Wycliffe has "And Eleasar, the sone of Saura", which seems to be based on Jerome's "et vidit Eleazar filius Saura". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just a quick comment without having time (yet?) to get deeper into the thick of the matter. The English transliteration of the Hebrew adjective above החורני should be Hachorani or Hakhorani, and the adjective format denotes the place where the person comes from. Therefore the meaning here would be that Eleazar was originally from a place called Choran or Khoran. (Or, even if the place in question was Chorah or Khorah, the adjective would still be Chorani or Khorani.) Just a suggestion. If both possibilities are correct the translation of the complete Hebrew name above would be Eleazar from Choran or from Chorah, or Eleazar the man from Choran or from Chorah. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the he.wikipidia article says he was called החורני because he lived in Beth Choron, Bethoron in here. However, it also needs a source for that. My suggestion would be to just rename the article back to Eleazar Maccabeus and note that the name given in Maccabees is Avaran. Otherwise not a very notable figure, except for the manner in which he was described as dying. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've written and nominated for GA an article about a Jewish rescue organization in Slovakia during the Holocaust. The Working Group connected Ben-Gurion to Himmler in a large-scale ransom negotiation that proposed to save all European Jews from the Holocaust. (Unfortunately, it failed). A review or any feedback would be much appreciated! Catrìona (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any enterprising programmer here who would be interested in writing a bot that runs once a year (or some other regular period) and gets dates from Hebcal to update the Gregorian dates for Jewish holidays? —howcheng {chat} 02:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a bot request page? I'd imagine for someone who knows, it's a simple request to pull the information and populate the correct calendar date. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Bot requests. There is a backlog, though. Catrìona (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC).

FWIW, most dates (not quite all) can be calculated from {{Hebrew year/rhdatum}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to Ethics in the Bible on its talk page involving restructuring the article topically to produce a more neutral pov and better content. I am looking for consensus on improving what everyone agrees is a poor quality article. Please come and comment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, How to join the project? Ralph747 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite simple: just click here and add your name to the list. Catrìona (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona, thanks! Ralph747 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Catrìona (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a few more eyes on the newest talk at Talk:American Jews#American Jews and race. Basically a debate over if there is a debate about Jewish whiteness. The question......is there a debate within the community about Jewish whiteness label. --Moxy (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a debate but there is not much of a debate. Rather than a debate it is a barely perceptible murmur. You wish to characterize it as "contentious" while one of the sources that you provided characterizes the "debate" as "relative ambivalence" (see the Talk page). You need a source that supports your notion of contentiousness as applicable to this phenomenon. I am not arguing that this phenomenon does not exist. I am arguing against language that overemphasizes this phenomenon. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......

• Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples Kenneth L. Marcus (2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
• Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race. Eric L. Goldstein (2006). The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-691-12105-2.. Moxy (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerning your first source, the Barry Glassner source, you write that "They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans". That says nothing about "whiteness". Yes, it refers to their identity as Jews, and yes, it refers to their identity as Americans. But where is the reference to "whiteness"? And why don't you quote a continuous excerpt? Why the ellipsis? Concerning the other two sources you have not provided any excerpted material that you feel supports the language that you would prefer to see in the article. It is not my responsibility to examine an extensive tract of source material to find language to support your argument. You wish to put language into the article which says "Many American Jews identify as white, a label which is somewhat contentious within the community, with many instead choosing to identify simply as Jewish." That is stronger language than the language I prefer, which is "Some American Jews identify as white but other American Jews solely identify as Jewish." The onus is on you to provide support in sources for the stronger language which you prefer. Also, what does "many" mean? "Many" feel they are "white" but "many" feel they are not white? Do you think that many are undecided? Do you think that maybe many never even thought about it? Do you think that perhaps many couldn't care less one way or the other? The problem with your preferred language is that it makes more of this minor phenomenon than is warranted. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation of facts is even close to correct.... "many" as you have inserted over the source wording does not come close to representing the fact that 90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white. Not sure why your misrepresenting facts and misleading our readers...... I really hope this doesn't affect multiple articles. Good luck in your future misrepresentation of the facts.--Moxy (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You point out that "90% of U.S. Jews described themselves as white." Well of course, because phenotypically approximately 90% of U.S. Jews are "white". By contrast a reference to Jews as being "culturally white" (or "culturally non-white") is a reference to "white" as a social construct. But please explain to me how an assertion that 90% of U.S. Jews describe themselves as white supports the wording that you prefer in the article. The basis for the more incisive language that you would prefer to see in our article has to find support in sources or we should use the less pointed language that I prefer for our article. Note that I am not opposing the inclusion of a general reference to the established fact that some Jews make a distinction between phenotypically "white" Jews and phenotypically "white" non-Jews. If you wish our article to say that this is a "contentious" issue among Jews you need support for that in sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

read up....no guess work

Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......

• Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples Kenneth L. Marcus (2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
• Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race. Eric L. Goldstein (2006). The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-691-12105-2..

Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......

• Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples Kenneth L. Marcus (2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
• Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race. Eric L. Goldstein (2006). The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-691-12105-2..

Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......

• Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples Kenneth L. Marcus (2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
• Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race. Eric L. Goldstein (2006). The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-691-12105-2..

Barry Glassner (2008). The Jewish Role in American Life: An Annual Review. Purdue University Press. As Jews moved along the racial continuum from marginalized and non-white to part of America's white power ... They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans.......

• Here Marcus quotes Goldstien on how the debate over whiteness and Jewishness is still on going and gives a few examples Kenneth L. Marcus (2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
• Here Goldstien explains how the community its-self debate the labeling of whiteness vs race. Eric L. Goldstein (2006). The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity. Princeton University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-691-12105-2..

You say "read up". Why can't you quote an excerpt that you feel is supportive of your argument? And I have already responded to your excerpted quote saying "They also engaged in a bitter and contentious internal debate over their own identity as Jews and Americans". That says nothing about "whiteness". Did you read the post in which I have already responded to that? You can't point me to indeterminate expanses of text and think that you have proven your point. We need to discuss any text which you think supports your argument. And you are repeating the same sources. For what reason? Why don't you focus on one source at a time? Provide an excerpt without the use of ellipses, and we can discuss that source and then move on to the next source. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

At least one of your sources, as I've pointed out on the article Talk page, argues against your preferred wording. You refer to a source which reads: "The notion that Jews 'became white' like other ethnic groups during the twentieth century ignores the relative ambivalence with which Jews have accepted and been accepted into the boundaries of cultural whiteness." Do you notice the term "relative ambivalence"? Does that sound like "contentiousness" to you? To me it sounds like they couldn't care less about being accepted as being "culturally white" or not. There is one very obvious reason why they might not be concerned about being accepted as being "culturally white". That is because in the majority of cases American Jews are phenotypically "white". What does that mean? It means that their appearance is little different from that of non-Jews that are phenotypically "white". Most Jews did not have "non-white" written all over themselves as did black people in America—both non-Jewish black people as well as those few Jewish black people. Let us stop burying our heads in a hole in the ground and pretending that reality doesn't exist. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Catrìona (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians - If you have some extra time, kindly examine the article on the noted conductor and composer Samuel Adler (composer) who fled Nazi occupied Germany as a young child in 1938. A request for an "Info Box - person" has been processed and included on the article but appears to be subject to continuous deletion (perhaps because Adler is still alive?) Kindly consider using the "Info Box academic" template {{Infobox academic}} to rectify this problem as suggested here Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers, or perhaps assigning an "Infobox -Person" from the WikiProject Judaism Project (or "Info box Musical Artist") since Adler was also an active Jewish/American conductor who founded the historic Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra, participated in cultural diplomacy initiatives in Europe after World War II, was commended by Dwight D. Eisenhower for his work in Europe, and was awarded the U. S. Army's highest Medal of Honor for services to Music, published several academic books on Orchestra, and Choral conducting, was a member of the faculty at several leading music conservatories including the Eastman School of Music and the Juilliard School for over 60 years, and was recognized by his academic peers by receiving several Honorary Doctorate of Music degrees as well as membership in Sigma Alpha Iota and Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I would be grateful for any insights which you might wish to share on the articles talk page here Talk:Samuel Adler (composer). Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration and contributions to the discussion along with my best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the future With warmest regards...104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)PS104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Ps

Should the Jewish identity of Fred Guttenberg be mentioned or is it best omitted? Ditto at Andrew Pollack. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated Jewish words and expressions for discussion at RfD. Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 28#Jewish words and expressions would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut was deleted because there was no agreement on what the most appropriate target would be. Editors are free to recreate if they see fit. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:G-d has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cabayi (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Template was retained (based on no consensus to delete). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not templating these yet, because I'll probably just do the merge myself. But I think Haketia and Tetuani Ladino should be merged. That will probably be pretty uncontroversial per se (unless I'm really missing something), but I'm less sure which name should survive and which should become the redirect.

• Please comment if you think I'm missing something and both articles should be retained.
• I think that Haketia is probably more commonly used these days, but I'm open to refutation on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• No expertise here, but I did poke around a bit - it seems they are both treated as distinct Ladino variants - one for Algeria and one for Morocco. In as much the whole Ladino tree isn't merged - merging these might not make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Would someone from WP:JUDAISM mind taking a look at this and assessing it for notability? It's been tagged for sources and notability since 2009 and has bascially been unedited since 2013. I'm not finding anything which even comes close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH, but perhaps someone here will have better luck. If not, then WP:PROD or WP:AFD might be in order. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If anyone can help untangle the mess at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_do_we_deal_with_a_RS_being_factually_incorrect.3F, I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like this to redirect using the uppercase "J". How would I accomplish that? Bus stop (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you asking about creating a redirect from "Orthodox Jew" with a capital J? There already is one. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I have seen that. But "search" for "Orthodox Jew" in the "search" box and all that comes up is this redirect. Do we need both of these redirects? The only difference between them is that one is in lowercase and the other is in uppercase. I would like to delete the one in lowercase as it is unnecessary. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how Wikipedia Search works; sometimes it's case-specific and sometimes it's not. If you really want to delete the lower-case redirect, nominate it at WP:Redirects for discussion. But be forewarned: many editors hold the attitude that "redirects are cheap", so unless there's a good reason to delete a redirect, it will probably stay. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Thanks for that. I've nominated the lowercase redirect for deletion here. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Yom Kippur was not able to be on the front page due to reference issues, let's try to be ahead of this one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I really get sick of that. Ya know? Anyway, I'll focus on Shemini Atzeret.

People should also look at Hoshana Rabba and Simchat Torah. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Simchat Torah just received a few edits from me. Awful. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal thanks to Sir Joseph and anyone else who helped make sure Sukkot was listed. And personal thanks to Debresser for looking at Simchat Torah, which was clearly not a quick-fix project. (Neither was Hoshana Rabba, as far as it goes.) Now that we are headed into "ordinary time", as our Christian friends would put it, let's try to work periodically on these while we're not under time pressure. And as my wife, who works in Judaica retail, reminds me, Chanukah is not that far off ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please may I bring to your attention the draft page now pending at Draft:East_London_Central_Synagogue. Please also note the redlink Sfardish for which a page would be very helpful indeed, as it is naturally confused with Sephardic 51.6.65.190 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

PS I haven't yet clicked "Submit your draft for review" - feel free to do so if you think it's ready 51.6.65.190 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think "Sfardish" should be an article? Debresser (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

because when I searched online for information about what this word means in this context, I found as good as nothing. As far as I could tell it was more often being taken as a synonym for Sephardic. One of the references I've given for the article gives a passing explanation, as does the interview I supplied in the External Links section

"The name Sfardish refers to a style of service that differs slightly from mainstream Ashkenazi and is similar to Hassidic usage. Sfardish is not to be confused with Sephardic. The order of service and certain extra words to some of the prayers are similar to Sephardic tradition, but the Hebrew pronunciation and tunes are Ashkenazi, as are most of the congregation."

Similar information from here

"Orthodox - Ashkenazi
Initially the style of service (nosach) was Sfardish (or Sphardish), also known as Askenazi Sfard (not to be confused with Sephardi)."

To be honest I don't understand what the arguments against there being an article on it would be, so I'm unsure how best to frame an argument for its inclusion other than, it's something that exists which Wikipedia isn't yet recording. 51.6.65.190 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

By googling the term "Ashkenazi Sfard" I found the page Nusach Sefard, exactly the page I was hoping would exist. Perhaps a couple of redirect pages for that term and Sfardish would be helpful. (Perhaps I should try to remember my old Wikipedia login and do those myself...) 51.6.65.190 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"I don't understand what the arguments against there being an article on it would be" See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But yeah, linking to Nusach Sefard sounds like a good idea. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to Nusach Sefard is a good idea. My main question to you is this: Is what they use (at least now) actually Nusach Sefard? If so, then just say so right in the article.

I never actually saw the term "Sfardish" before. But I have heard reference to/questions about "Ashkenazi Sfard" or "Ashkenazi Nusach Sefard". Is either (or both) of those worthy of a redirect? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither have I. In answer to your question: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is this shul notable? I am thinking of AFDing it if no claim of notability is established. We certainly can't have every shul have an article here, unless notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the section emphasising that this seems to be the most notable remnant of what was certainly a notable centre of Jewish life. I hope that's helpful. I've no idea if that would be deemed sufficient in an AfD - I had figured that, if someone made the decision to upgrade the status of my draft, they would be taking matters of notability into consideration. (Back when I was an active Wikipedia editor the articles I created were on very different topics, which perhaps had lower bars as regards notability)

Perhaps if a more general page, a history of Jewish religious life in London's East End existed, this page could be absorbed into it, as the final section, with information about its neighbouring survivor, the Congregation of Jacob synagogue, also included? Best wishes, 51.6.65.190 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The East End Jewish article would most certainly be a good article and notable, but unfortunately I don't see any notability to this one, I am sadly going to take it to AFD. Perhaps someone else might be able to dig up more stuff and I'll be glad to undo my nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• We certainly can't have every shul have an article here Why not? I can't find an obvious policy beneath WP:N about this, but (as someone more interested in architecture) I've certainly always worked on the principle that any church worth doing the typing for would be acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've redirected Sfardish to Nusach Sefard, to assist the IP. If anyone objects or has a better target, I've no objection to removing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

As I discussed at Talk:KosherSwitch#NPOV, the creators of KosherSwitch are clearly in a huge fight with some rabbis. I would very much like to have someone who has no position on whether KosherSwitch is allowed under Jewish law but who also has more familiarity with the religious issues than I do to take a look at this article. My skills are better used working on the electronics/technical aspects. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please help out at Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up I nominated Hannukah for GA so keep a heads up on that article in case someone starts reviewing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

An anon who geolocates to Haifa - 77.127.6.229 (talk) added a reference to Israel Isserlein (which has no references). Not being able to make any sense out of it, I reverted here. The anon then left a message on my talk page requesting assistance. We are having a communications issue. Would someone please help this person? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed that many articles on individual tractates of the Talmud are poorly written. They are in desperate need of expansion and overall improvement. I want to expand the pages, but it is difficult to come across accurate sources about this subject. I would appreciate if someone could help out. Thank you - Alternate Side Parking (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone know what criteria is used to weigh the notability of rabbis to figure out if they are notable enough for an article about them? I'm not sure how to assess this. For example:

• 2008 https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3519678,00.html
• 2010 https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/the-curse-that-rocked-great-neck/ refers to Mordechai Aderat and Rabbi Aderat
• 2017 https://www.jewishlinknj.com/community-news/bergen/20082-1-000-for-hashem-a-tefillin-chesed-from-englewood-to-israel
• 2018 https://forward.com/fast-forward/413533/orthodox-rabbi-dont-pray-for-pittsburgh-victims-because-they-were/ uses the full phrase Rabbi Mordechai Aderat

If this were enough I am not sure which of the 3 styles to use as primary title. While I think that Jewish Week and The Forward are notable sources, I don't know if this alone would qualify for starting a stub. Any input there? Seems to only be notable for 2 events. Ash Carol (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The article would be called Mordechai Aderet (without the title). Minor local notoriety only. Small number of incidents. I don't think this man meets the general notability guidelines. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been working on a list/map that would help to locate the different Hungarian Jewish groups on a map. I would like to have all the pages of the rabbis and the groups on this list. Could you suggest some improvements before putting it to the main namespace? (The map itself is a bit problematic, but I haven't found anything better.) Drkazmer ^{Just tell me...} 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC on inclusion of police investigation that editors here might be interested in - I couldn't find a WikiProject on antisemitism so thought this project would be most appropriate. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this DYK hook, but being neither Jewish nor a historian I wasn't sure what to conclude other than it probably doesn't belong bolded on the front page valereee (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Also per WP:DYKRULES there's nothing discouraging potentially controversial topics from being on the front page; on the contrary, it is encouraged to chose interesting topics that can draw viewers attention. Numerous topics related to Polish-Jewish history, and more controversial issues such as The Holocaust and antisemitism have been DYKed in the past, just a few recent examples:  Eliezer Gruenbaum, The Black Book of Polish Jewry, Secret City (book), Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews, Sambor Ghetto and others. The article about the saying that is proposed for DYK is stable (outside of an RM that seems likely to finish soon in no move) and neutral (no tags, edit warring, active discussions). The article doesn't hide the fact that the saying originates from a xenophobic poem (a fact mentioned in lead and the text), and one of the proposed hooks even draws attention to the fact the saying is an exaggeration. Nonetheless, as shown in the article, that historical use is rare today, and the saying is generally used to refer to the Golden Age of Jews in Middle Ages in Poland. It is also not a controversial or offensive saying - despite one user making OR arguments to the contrary, it is not used in antisemitic context. Let me repeat - the article is stable and nobody has found sources to say that the saying is controversial or problematic (outside of what is already in the article). The proverb is displayed in the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews and the supposedly controversial part of it is even used as a gallery heading () - you would think that if this was truly controversial, the museum would reconsider said use, or at least add a note or something. Not to mention you'd expect international/Jewish press to discuss the issue. Alas, not a single journalist ever has picked up on any potential controversy. Only one scholar, very critical of the POLIN museum, has (in passing) criticized this saying/phrase (they also criticized many other elements of the museum, up to and including a display of garlic). A few other scholars have replied to the original criticism, nobody else repeated the claim that this phrase is problematic, the museum continues to use it and our article discusses this issue quite at length. As long as the hook wording is neutral, I can't possibly imagine what would make this topic inappropriate. In fact, as long as it is properly worded, an article related to Jewish history would actually make a good Chanukah-time DYK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In relation to section above - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the relevant AFD --Shrike (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have created the above draft and would appreciate if someone form here would review it and/or provide feedback. Thanks - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You should include a history section, that the siren takes the place of the announcement by the Kohanim in the Temple. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You could add that sometimes the siren is omitted, when Israel is under threat of war. Apparently so as not to frighten people who might think it is a real war siren. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: I didn’t come across that when Googleing about the Shabbat siren. Do you have a particular source? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a potential infobox template for this page? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

From personal observation, no source, sorry. I don't think the article needs an infobox, or that an appropriate one exists, for that matter. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Jewish works

Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Paradisus Judaeorum, renamed following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December, and may interest this community. Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know why www.nizkor.org is coming up with malware alerts? Does anyone have contacts that might help fix this? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Somebody with extra snark in their diet removed this question, perhaps unaware that there are links to nizkor.org in (at the moment) 898 pages related to Judaism. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

has been adding websites as sources or external links, sometimes replacing old urls to different sites. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he's replacing (or in some place responding to CNs) not so great sources/links (usually dead links) with other not so great sources/links. In both cases this is a lecture by a Rabbi. I don't think I would see this as spam or anything nefarious (at least the 10 or so I examined). Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have collected a batch of articles which contain Judaism-related links to DAB pages. Expert attention would be welcome. Some of the puzzles may be insoluble, but I work on the principle that You Never Know. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode. If you manage to solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag in the article, and post {{done}} here.

• Meor Hatalmud  Done
• Shlomo Herberg  Done
• Tosafot
• Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (book)  Done
• Judah bar Ezekiel  Done
• Helbo  Done
• History of the Jews of Jasło

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I am archiving three items from the WikiProject assessment page. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

An RfC that might interest this community - Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC - lawsuit. Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Expurgation § Religious, which reads in full

In 1264, Pope Clement IV ordered the Jews of Aragon to submit their books to Dominican censors for expurgation.

does not describe what was excised or changed, unlike the other sections of the article. It would benefit from that information. -- Thnidu (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The above article is extremely poorly written, especially for a biography of a living person. Please take the times to visit the article and collaborate on improving it. Thanks - Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please look at Draft:Rabbi David M. Posner and determine whether this person is notable? I'm assuming that the answer is yes, since The New York Times wrote a full obituary (i.e., not a paid death notice written by the family) about him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year everybody! Can someone in the know help along with this issue? Debresser argued to turn it into a redirect (as already the case with kosher). However, the term treif is not explained as such within the envisaged target Kashrut. Any ideas? Kind regards--Hildeoc (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The obvious idea is to explain in the kashrut article what treif is. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, I've noticed that a lot of entries at WP:RFD have a rationale of "not mentioned in the target article", so if we redirect pages to even obviously related targets, but they don't mention that in the current version, they seem to be at a greater risk of deletion. I started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#RFD as cleanup, if anyone's interested in the general case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted. On the one hand it seems like a useful article; on the other hand it is based on one source. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It's based on one source because it's an article about a book titled The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies. I get fewer than 100 Google hits for the title (without "the"), and that includes Wikipedia mirrors. There were only a handful of reviews, such as this one, but none of the major newspapers or trade magazines appear to have reviewed it. (Then again, it was published in 1998, so maybe some of the reviews it received aren't online.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep it for subjective reasons; it is a useful if not exhaustive sampling of that genre. Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please become involved in the discussion, will be much appreciated. AddMore-III (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about this on Talk:Vashti#Infobox. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Since these are supposed to be "Queens of Persia", and Vashti is never claimed to have been Hebrew/Jewish, I will also raise this at the Persian project, since Debresser has most unaccountably failed to do so! Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Well done, Johnbod. Apart from the personal note, which you had better left unmentioned. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about setting up a task force within this WikiProject to deal with Jewish works, primarily the Talmud and Mishna. Despite the importance of written works in Judaism, many of the articles devoted to Jewish works, including articles on specific tractates of the Mishna and Talmud, are in desperate need of attention. They are poorly written, lack sources, and don’t convey enough information. If you would be willing to join such a task force, please indicate below. Any feedback about this idea would be appreciated. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish you luck. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: Do you know of any users that would join if this task force were to be created? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I will try - with Hashem's help - to contribute. --תנא קמא (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added a reference to Avraham Steinberg § Career , but upon closer examination, it appears the reference may have copied the information from this Wikipedia article. The source in question does not attribute this Wikipedia article, but I still feel it may have been copied. I would appreciate if another editor can look it over and determine if the source did in fact plagiarize from Wikipedia.

This is the source: Frankfurter, Yitzchock (January 30, 2019). "A Life of Halachah & Medicine". Ami Magazine. No. 403. p. 88. Retrieved January 31, 2019.

-- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: I think there is a very good chance that this Wikipedia article was the source used in Ami Magazine. I also couldn't find a different source to confirm the MDA committee, and the only other source about the mohel committee did not say he was chair. (He may have been for a while, and is no longer. Who knows?) I don't think this stuff must be removed from the article; I'd be surprised if it was wrong. But I think you should go back to {{citation needed}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on merging Kosher foods into Kashrut. see Talk:Kashrut#Merger_proposal Hydromania (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm working on a plant article, Peganum harmala, and ancient history is an interest. It has recently come to my attention that it is possibly mentioned once in the Talmud -something about it being a wild plant and therefore not requiring tithes. Reason I say possibly is that the English name for this plant, "rue", is ambiguous regarding exact species, being confused since Greek times with Ruta graveolens. In Ancient Greek the word πήγανον may allude to either plant, depending on qualifier, fide Dioscorides, but I note that at least in modern Hebrew the names are distinct (פיגם vs. שבר לבן). Note similarity of פיגם with πήγανον. Would anyone know where exactly in the Talmud this is mentioned, is the text Aramaic or Hebrew, and which name exactly is used? Πήγανον is also in the New Testament (Luke) -in that case tithes do need to be paid, but as mentioned, the Greek language is ambiguous here; I'm hoping the Talmud has an answer regarding this... Regards, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: fide Flora of Israel Ruta graveolens doesn't occur in the wild in Israel (but may have been cultivated), but R. chalepensis does (esp. in the north) -which may be known as "wild rue" in English. Peganum harmala may also be known as "wild rue", and is quite common in southern Israel, where the relevant passage in the Bible plays out. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See here if this helps, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph (just Google the terms, why didn't I think of that?)... Hmmm, not what I was expecting. So the plant occurs at least twice in the Talmud. So according to this book the word "tigna" (טגן‬ maybe?‬) is used, which is some declension/derivative of "teganon", which it equates to "peganon" (-seems like an intellectual stretch), which Löw unhelpfully says might be either Peganum or Ruta. "Plinius Valerius" isn't too helpful either: first off, he doesn't exist -he was invented around the 15th century as the purported author of the then popular compendium of herbs known as the Medicina Plinii -quotes taken from Pliny the Elder in ~350, then hugely expanded with anonymous text in the 6th to 7th centuries. Second the instructions in Latin are far too different to be a direct translation of "tigna" as ruta. The words ruta sicca might indicate (our) Ruta, not Peganon, is meant, of which seeds or root are more likely to be used. If I knew in which part of the Talmud this is from, and could verify if the Latin quote in question is actually from Pliny the Elder, then the case could be made that in this instance that the Talmud was inspired by Pliny, and thus then "tigna" = Ruta, but this seems a weak argument. Not really worth pursuing.

I think the text I want would go something like:

"This plant may also be the ... mentioned in the Talmud, although the identity of ... is confused with Ruta spp.."

with references to the specific parts of the Talmud and Löw, this book, and/or others who translate the word(s) in question as such.

Lot of darned work for one lousy sentence! I think I'll find a Talmud and search it for טגן‬ and the modern Israeli Hebrew names. Although לבן שבר is a strange one... white grain? That might refer to a Yemenite legend from 1750 abouts -an etymology would be nice. Thanks, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it's טגן as that's a total dead end in Jastrow. Then again, it's a notoriously difficult dictionary to use. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)‬

Thanks guys, I found it as פָּגַם ,פִּיגָּם ,פִּגָּם ,הַפֵּגָם ,פָּגוּם -it is mentioned numerous times, all in the Mishnah, also found it in Jastrow -he's useful. Alas, the Talmud seems to be using the Greek name, and from the text it is not clear to me which plant is actually being written about. Jastrow claims the word is of Semitic origin, although I don't see his logic, as the word is attested in Greek sources 600 years earlier and has a good Greek etymology. Jastrow identifies the plant simply as 'rue'... That in Modern Hebrew Ruta chalepensis is now being called the Talmudic פיגם must mean everyone else nowadays assumes that this is what is being talked about, but I can't help but feel the modern day convention is a NW European interpretation. I think I'll just sit on this a bit till I've read more. Cheers 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill may be of interest to this project.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Purim is coming up and should be checked for citation needed tags and be ready to be bombed with tags once it gets placed on the "tomorrow's OTD." So be on the lookout. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source for when Al HaNissim was written? The article lacks this info, and I can't find it anywhere online. I hope to have this info up by Purim. — Puzzledvegetable (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it was instituted by the same sages of the Great Assembly who instituted the general text of the 18 prayer. Which is probably why you can't find a source, because it is no different than all other parts of the 18 prayer. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion about the above article agreed to merge it with Yiddish words used in English. If anyone can help out, that would be appreciated. --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In the future you might want to WP:DELSORT so that this project would be notified of the AFD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: There is currently a discussion between editors on Talk:Jewish religious clothing regarding an image that appears on the main article. At first, I thought we might need to defer our discussion to Wikipedia:RfC to help us build a consensus, but upon second thought, it would only attract people who are unfamiliar with Jewish laws and customs. Therefore, I appeal to my fellow editors here to review the comments on that Talk-Page and to give an opinion about the matter at hand. Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We would still appreciate any feedback on an issue raised in Talk:Jewish religious clothing#Edit warring over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image.Davidbena (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has proceeded to RfC, located at Talk:Jewish religious clothing § Request for Comment. Ibadibam (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Antony Lerman of openDemocracy on the reliable sources noticeboard with respect to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Antony Lerman at openDemocracy. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Chassidic redirects to Hasidic Judaism, but that article has no mention of the term/spelling. Could it be added in some reasonable manner? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A new editor is trying to state on Kosher wine that you must be a male to make kosher wine and I'm afraid an edit war is brewing. A pair of eyes would be appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've read some of the diffs, but haven't read all of them. Is it possible that he's just (clumsily) claiming that one has to be male to be a mashgiach? Gilded Snail (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's less than four days until Passover appears on the main page on the on this day feature, and then inevitably gets removed again because the article is woefully undersourced. An edit war and various arguing will then ensue. I don't suppose it's possible that someone could at least ensure there are no unsourced paragraphs or sections before Saturday? I would try it, but my knowledge of this area is pretty much zero. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but what changed this year, the page has been on the main page every year but 2017, since 2004, according to the talk page. I will reiterate that being a FA is not a requirement for OTD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was thinking of Rosh Hashanah, but the concept applies anyway :) Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A relatively new editor, Yallayallaletsgo (talk · contribs) has created Hashem as a stand alone article, the old one having been a dab. There's a bit of a mess with talk pages and the old links, and the article itself seems poorly sourced. If someone could take a look it would be helpful. I'm also having problems at Mount Gerizim where the editor is insisting that Yahweh must be replaced by Hashem "removed a word that is not allowed to be typed or uttered by Jews or Samaritans and is not appropriate for the article. Instead added the proper term and an explanation." I don't think this is appropriate and am concerned that they may try to make this change elsewhere. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Mount Grizim article, I think that using God in Judaism is the obvious best candidate, and have made that change. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: I agree, that's the best choice. I'm still concerned about the Hashem problems of course. This new editor also doesn't understand our copyright policy but I've told them about that now. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The standalone page is deleted as a copyvio. So do we move the dab back? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Compare and contrast Babylonian captivity with Assyrian captivity. The former looks pretty decent, whereas the latter would seem to need some major work. Any thoughts or volunteers? Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on about whether or not there were pogroms following the Black Death. Please contribute your thoughts at Talk:Antisemitic canard#Contradiction about post-Black Death massacres. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you like, share your input at Talk:Tefillin#Section_How_to_put_on_tefillin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this article today and it has no references at all. If someone has some time, any help cleaning it up would be appreciated. Ktav_Stam. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope you agree that finding sources would be preferable to removing content. Just asking because "cleaning up" sounds like "removing". Debresser (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

רחמה ליצלן, that's not what I meant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Smile}} Debresser (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you were trying to do this: , which is accomplished through {{smiley}}. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. 21:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Orthodox Judaism § Deleting most of the article Please see Talk:Orthodox_Judaism#Deleting_most_of_the_article for a discussion on the Orthodox Judaism article Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

From our article on Australian artist Howard Arkley:

His mother's side of the family was Jewish and his father was German.

Is this correct usage per WP:MOS or would it be better to rephrase this?

Thanks - 189.122.248.181 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I would rephrase it considering that many Jews are German. In other words, nationality and religion are not the same thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but in the absence of further details (nl. the nationality of the mother or the religion of the father), I don't think this can be rewritten meaningfully. "His father was German. His mother was Jewish."? In general, this is not lead material ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."), and should be moved to a "Personal life" section. Debresser (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

See (for example) Judaism § Distinction between Jews as a people and Judaism. This is actually a very involved issue. To some extent, "Jewish" represents nationality, or at least peoplehood, and to some extent it represents membership in a religious community. So handling usage like this is not necessarily simple and straightforward.

Fortunately, in this case, we can kick the problem down the road—punt it away, if you will. As @Debresser notes, unless such matters are relevant to the subject's notability, they don't go in the lead of the article at all. As I read the article, Arkley's Australian-ness seems to be relevant, and so can stay in the lead. His ancestry—Jewish, German or otherwise—doesn't, so should be moved. (For contrast, see Marc Chagall, whose Jewishness absolutely belongs in the lead.) StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Lag BaOmer is scheduled to be on the main page in a few days but there are a few citation needed tags. Please help reference the page if you have time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Judaism,

I have a question I hope you can help me with. I work a lot with Categories and I'm running into individuals who seem like they are tenuously Jewish but who are categorized as Jewish. One incident had a musician who had one great-grandparent (out of 8 great-grandparents) who was Jewish, there is nothing in the article that says that they thought of themselves as Jewish, there is no information that they practiced or identified as Jewish, but they are in categories of Jewish performers.

I'm happy to have every notable Jewish person have an article on Wikipedia. But this seems like a case of Jewish ancestry and not Jewishness. What do you think? This isn't only a question about Jewishness, it's whether having one great-grandparent of any ethnicity or religion confers that ethnicity upon that person if they don't state that they identify with that heritage. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT#Articles: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." If a biography doesn't cite reliable sources that assert a person is Jewish, the article shouldn't be in categories for Jewish (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) If the sources state that a person's parent(s) (or grandparents) were (or are) Jewish, the article may belong in categories for (Americans/journalists/actors/etc.) of Jewish descent. And even then, the article should only be in the category if Jewish descent is one of the person's defining characteristics. This has nothing to do with halakha, which says that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, but with Wikipedia's sourcing, WP:BLP, and categorization requirements. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What Malik Shabazz said, though I tend to be a little more lenient for non-living people who were obviously Jewish (e.g. Yiddish speaking). Even for living people, if someone is, say, a rabbi, then they are pretty likely to be a Jew too. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I too would urge not to remove categories too quickly. We have Template:Uncited category for cases that seem to be true but lack a source. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that WP:BLP recommends haste, not deliberation, in the removal of unsourced contentious material—"whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable"—from biographies of living people, and often the subject's religion is contentious. Obviously if the topic isn't contentious, or if adherence to a particular religion is an implicit job requirement , there's no need for hasty removal of a category while sources are sought. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This proposed move discussion at Talk:Meir_of_Rothenburg#Proposed_move has been neglected for some months. Any constructive input welcomed, even (especially) if critical. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, please see: Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Allegations that Torah true classical scholars supported and implied pro gay themes and memes is ludicrous. What do you say? IZAK (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Centralized discussion at Talk:Timeline of LGBT Jewish history#Descended from Baal Shem Tov? Proof please!. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Answering this question, made me think we have redlinks for bdieved and lhatchila. Or are there bluelinks I'm not spelling correctly? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd write them "bediavad" or "b'diavad" and "lechatchila" or "l'chatchila". Notice by the way, that "bediavad"/"b'diavad" is the grammatically correct form of what in Yeshivish is pronounced as "bedieved"/"b'dieved". Debresser (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Does he: have a page for either/both? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

he:לכתחילה ובדיעבד Anyone want to have a crack at an English page? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one to write this. But I will note that the one small description I found is located at List of Talmudic principles § Modern observance. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, we tend to kh for ח. So probably "lechatkhila" ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMON we should use the most common English spelling, which I think it "lechatchila". Debresser (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be honest: I think it should be a section within Halakha, not a separate page. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please note above discussion. Thank you --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just added a few tags to the above article. It is in desperate need of attention. Please see the talk page where I discuss why. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

An article of interest to this project—Expulsion of Jews from Spain—has been proposed for merging from Alhambra decree. Your feedback would be welcome at the merge discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, Special:Contributions/173.238.231.208 has been adding "Messianic Jews" to the 'Celebrated by' section of the infoboxes for Jewish holidays. (Edit summary: "Messianic Jews also celebrate this Holy Day.") I feel like this is something I should just roll back, but I'm soliciting other opinions in the meantime. Gilded Snail (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some landmines here. Theoretically *adding* Messianic Jews to the list on the article indicates that for those who celebrate it that "Messianic Jews" is *not* a subset of Jews, which is *against* the claims of Messianic Jews. OTOH, *removal* would indicates that they are a subset of Jews. I'm not really sure how to proceed, I just thought that I'd throw this out here.Naraht (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• The editor made a request here, and I denied it. So far this was not in the infoboxes of article (except Yom Kippur). Let me copy my comment here, and centralize this discussion:

So far editors have opposed the addition of Messianic Judaism at that place in the infobox, as lending undue attention to a minor group. Another argument could be that just like we don't specify all the denominations of Judaism that keep the holiday, stating simply "Judaism", likewise Messianic Judaism is included. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, moving back to somewhere safer ground WP-wise. the request started out with "I celebrate", do we have any hope of finding something actually referencable on this? It isn't as if Messianic Judaism is a tightly controlled religion (like say the Mormons)Naraht (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please become involved in the recent debate at Talk:Sholom Dovber Schneersohn. AddMore-III (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)