Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dovi (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 21 July 2004 (→Notice to Dovi about RK's "tactics"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Best wishes. Keep me posted. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aim and scope

Crossposted from IZAK's talk page:

The aim of the project has not yet clearly been elucidated. However, my past experience with Wikiproject "Clinical medicine" is:

  • When experienced editors exchange information, the quality of articles goes up due to coordination
  • Articles may be announced for peer review or floated for comments
  • Standards (such as Hebrew pronunciation!!) can be agreed upon
  • It makes edit wars briefer and less damaging
  • It helps in coordinated efforts against vandalism
  • Editors who are particularily knowledgable or have access to resources can do quick checks on facts.

I think a Wikiproject would be a massive step in the right direction. At least it will offer some unity in the otherwise very much fragmented approach to Judaism articles on Wikipedia (although IZAK's work on categorisation has brought a lot of structure). JFW | T@lk 15:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where is the bias?

The main page proclaims:

"The current viewpoint of articles tends towards a Conservadox (Liberal Modern Orthodox) point of view. Partially this is because other points of view find it more difficult to discuss all topics. However, this point of view is quite biased against more Orthodox viewpoints and possible against more liberal viewpoints as well."

I don't see the bias. We are following NPOV rules in all of our articles. As long as we continue to do so, we will be fine. All of our articles may be seen as being biased towards Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, due to the fact that the intellectual leaders of these movements have policies similar to NPOV rules. In contrast, most ultra-Orthodox Jews, (Hasidic and Non-Hasidic) are virtulently anti-historical, and view all historical research as anti-Semitic and heretical. But that is always a complaint made by fundamentalists about all non-religious encyclopedias. Wikipedia has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Muslims as being biased against their interpretation of Islam; Wikipedia has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Jews as being biased against their interpretation of Judaism; and Wikipedia has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Christians as being biased against their interpretation of Christianity. What they offer instead is a total violation of NPOV methodology. Their objections merely prove that the historical survery, NPOV style of writing which we currently have in our articles is the correct one to have. RK 13:37, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts, exactly!--Josiah 16:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
RK, the reason for this is that only recently some avowed Haredim have joined the project. And frankly, there is a fair bit of bias when anthropological or revisionist research on Judaism is taken without a pinch of salt. Indeed, historical research is seen as heretical because the inevitable conclusion of such research is something that clashes with the Jewish principles of faith. Some faith is irreconcileable with science, especially when the science is somewhat subjective in itself, almost pathetically rejecting classical Jewish sources as proof because they happen to be religious sources. Scrupulous adherence to NPOV should iron out the differences, but I do believe there's a fair bit of mending to do. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Once you imply that you view scientists and archaeologists as heretics, you show endanger your ability to work on this project. I still think you two fail to understand the point of thi encyclopedia project. This is not a religious Jewish encyclopedia, and none of our particles follow an orthodox Jewish point of view. Similarly, this is not a not a religious Christian or Muslim encyclopedia. No religion has the right to make sure that they agre with our articles. Rather, Wikipedia is a non-religious encyclopedia which states all known facts in accord with our NPOV policy. If a certain believes X, we say that According to Orthodox Jews, X is true, but according to other groups, Y is true, and according to the nearly unanimous findings of modern science, Z is true. That is all that the adherents of any religion can hope for. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Insisting that the current archeological/anthropological/sociological view of Jews, Judaism, Torah, Jewish history, etc. is "fact" and therefore NPOV is a grave misunderstanding of both the meaning of the word "fact", and the intent of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Stating that "a, b, and c are the views of archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists while x, y, and z are the traditional Jewish views" is NPOV. However, I've already had to edit a number of articles on Jewish-related topics (some of which you were heavily involved in creating or editing to begin with) which say things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways, is endemic in many of the less scrutinized articles on Jewish related topics, and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to. Jayjg 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I agree with you that we must phrase all statements in acord with NPOV policy. However, many of the findings of scientists and historians are facts. There is no misunderstanding. The world really is spherical, and not flat, as a literal reading of the Bible tells us. The world really is .5 billion years old, and not 6,000 years old, as as a literal reading of the Bible tells us (the same reading still accepted by most Orthodox Jews.) Life today really did evolve from earlier forms of life, despite that fact that most Orthodox Jews deny this. The patriarch Abraham did not wear a modern day kipa and tallit, and study in a yeshiva, despite the anachronistic teachings of some rabbis. Similarly, all historians and archaeologists are convinced that the Torah we have today has been redacted together from a number of earlier sources (i.e. the documentary hypothesis), and not a single reputable historians holds otherwise. RK

In fact, none of this is contrary to Orthodoxy! In Orthodox Judaism itself a great change in thinking has taken place over the past 100 years, and many Orthodox Jews now believe that the world really is 4.5 billion years old, and that evolution does take place. Also, despite a belief to the contrary, many Orthodox Jews have changed their minds on the documentary hypothsis, and now accept some form of it! (I can e-mail you details and references on this point; I wouldn't make such a claim without multiple references.) RK 13:36, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


Jayjg, you said that you found some articles which said things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." "This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways... and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to."

I understand your point; but in the past Jews really did believe W, X, Y, and Z, but now, since modern science and history, many Jews really did change their minds. Now I understand that many religious Jews are very upset about this. And we can say this within the article. I understand that on points W, X, Y and Z most Orthodox Jews have not changed their minds, but Orthodox Jews are only a small fraction of Jews living today. In the USA most synagogue-going Jews who practice Judaism their faith are not Orthodox. So to maintain NPOV we have to say that Orthodox Jews today believe W, X, Y, and Z, but due to changes in science and history, non-Orthodox Jews believes in W and X, but Y and Z have been modified or dropped, etc. This is factually true, and is stated in a neutral sort of way. RK 13:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
RK, in the areas of archeology and history, what "scientists" say are not "facts" in the same was as what they say regarding the atomic weight of various atoms. Rather they are hypotheses which are quite often debated, with paradigms being overturned on a regular basis. Now, it is true that some historical facts can be stated as such; for example, the dates of the reign of Queen Victoria are undisputed. However, other historical "facts" are indeed disputed; for example, the date which the Book of Daniel was written. The former are based on documented and unambiguous evidence; the latter is based primarily on linguistic theories and analysis. And it is the latter areas which tend to impinge most strongly on the articles in question. Whether or not many Jews have come to believe the views of archeologists or historians or whoever is not relevant to NPOV, but saying that Jewish beliefs have been "proved wrong" in these kinds of areas definitely does violate NPOV. Jayjg 04:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am Ok with this. As you may have noted, I have not reverted any of your edits; I was just trying to clarify my thinking on this issue. RK 20:06, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Use of the term "fundamentalist"

To equate Orthodox Jews with Christian or Islamic fundamentalists is appalling, misleading, disgusting and insulting, particularly since a number of people present here may be Orthodox and intellectually academic at the same time. Dr. de Wolff JFW for one is both a competent medical doctor and an Orthodox Jew and is rational and capable of NPOV to the hilt in spite of his Orthodoxy, and has accordingly been chosen by Wikipedia as an admin. Please apologize to him now! IZAK 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Izak, no one may work on any Wikipedia article unless they adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which demands that we all adhere to scholarly modes of discussion. The word fundamentalist has a very specific and technical meaning in the study of religions, and it is this specific, technical meaning that we use this word. Orthodox Judaism, by definition, is a fundamentalist religious denomimation. All of our articles state this. Please see the Wikipedia article on this topic so you can lanr how and why this word is used. The word fundamentalist is not an ad homenim attack nor an insult, and we can not rewrite our entire encyclopedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand this. RK 21:36, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Your citation "proves" nothing. One paragraph on a Wikipedia page about what Orthodox Jews "believe" does not give you the right to make sweeping judgments or cast aspersions on the Wikipedian capabilities of Jews, who may be Orthodox, to espouse a NPOV. Are you saying that only non-Orthodox Jews are capable of being Wikipedians? Probably you wouldn't mind it, unfortuantely for you Wikipedia is far too broad a tabula rasa for anyone to dominate it, INCLUDING non-Orthodox fundamentalists. Have you not heard of the phrases "Fanatical Reformers" or "Extreme Secularists" or "Dyed in the wool Conservatives" or "Confused Reconstructionists" are they also not FUNDAMENTALISTS too ??? IZAK 06:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IZAK, (A) You must stop your ad homenim attacks. That is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiqutte. (B) My citation does prove something...the problem is that you admit that you are essentially ignorant of the real world reading on this issue. In the real world, scholars of religion use the word "fundamentalism" in this way. Any claim to the contrary is unconnected with reality. If you cannot handle using the English langauge properly, without imaginging slander being hurled against you, then you are not yet ready to work on these articles. Please approach this project as a scholar of religion, and learn the terminology.

RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "real world"...which "world" is that exactly? Judaism does NOT, and has never relied on "scholars of religion". Judaism relies on its own ChaZaL (Our SAGES of Blessed Memory) and it is from them, and those present sages who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah that Jews learn what Jews and Judaism are about, not from "scholars of religion" who come and go with the (academic) fads of each decade. That is "Judaism 101" I think. Which yeshiva is it that teaches with the "commentaries" of "scholars of religion"? Do we want to convey synthetic and false information about Judaism concocted by professors or by the learned and scholarly rabbis over the millenia who have always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of the Jewish traditions? IZAK 01:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that is your point of view, then you may not contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles may not be written in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs. If you think that our articles must teach Judaism the way that Orthodox Jews do, then every on of your edits will be reverted on sight. You still don't get it, do you? This is not an Orthodox Jewish project, and we are not here to convert people to Orthodox Judaism. This is an NPOV encyclopedia. That means we include more than one point of view. If you can't handle this, then work elsewhere, on an exclusively Orthodox website. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, when one has had an all-around education, one is aware what the 3,300 year old traditions of Judaism are about, which academic scholars may miss. One has greater perspective, not less. Is it a "crime" to have been educated in a yeshiva? Then if that is your attitude, your are guilty of the same cultural anti-Orthodox anti-Semitism that you are so fond of accusing so many others of when they say thing that you don't like. Who said anything about writing articles that are "in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs"? And who said anything about excluding other points of view? The discussion is about how to organize, present and package all those contradictory views without confusing the intelligent reader. After all, we are not out to create animosity towards traditional Judaism either by advancing self-defeating viewpoints if they arise, after due discussion. The point was being made that one can quite safely provide the views of classical Jewish scholars within Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL but it is NOT "ANTI" anything. And no-one can be "forced" via your POV to accept that what "scholars" think is a brand of Judaism they don't like is "Fundamentalist" just because they have invented that term out of the thin air. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • 1)Are you equating Anti-Semetism with Anti-Orthodoxy? 2)RK has never claimed it's a crime to be Yeshiva educated. 3) You're missing RK's point. The Secular POV is not going to be kicked out just because the Orthodox POV says differently.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1)When someone issues serious threats against a person because they praised Orthodox rabbis it may be a form of cultural anti-Semitism, as anti-semites also hate Orthodox rabbis. 2) So then no need to get hysterical when one cites the insights of the yeshiva world. 3) Who said anything about "kicking out" anything. We are talking about creating balanced informative articles on Judaism that should at least do justice to the topic and NOT serve as vehicles for back-handed swipes aimed at the subject at hand, which would be self-defeating.IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, saying that the Rabbis are the only ones "who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah" shows extreme POV by saying that no one else can. Remember, this is not an Orthodox Judaism project. This is supposed to be a NPOV project. Futhermore, Rabbis have not "always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of Jewish traditions". The fact that the Pharisees numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000 during the 2nd temple times is sufficient evidence of that.--Josiah 03:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all this is the discussion page, and we are free to air ideas openly. I am NOT a Karaite and I am not a Conservative either. We are who we are, period. That is the world. Sure, you are personally free to quote whoever you like. Anyone can go ahead and quote Maddona on Judaism if they like, she is also a person with views on Kabbala, but would that be smart or responsible? Or whilst they're at it, a contributor can cite the New Testament's diatribes against the Pharisees in a Judaism or Torah article, if they like, but would that help the articles if they quote every last Christian's view of rabbis (Pharisees)? Please be serious Josiah, this is not a game of some sort. What is wrong with quoting rabbis as long as it's done in a NPOV fashion? Does one have to "convert" to being a Karaite or a Conservative before being "qualified" to give opinions? Obviuosly not. You are quite set in your own Karaite ideology yet seem to think that you are able to espouse a NPOV. How is that? If you and RK, an avowed Conservative, can do it, so can anyone else have their own personal views yet also be serious NPOV scholars on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse Wikipedia's NPOV policies with notions of PC: "political correctness" as each person comes with their own background to the table. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • IZAK, 1)I never said there's anything wrong with quoting Rabbis. Don't put words into my mouth. 2)How do I espouse an NPOV? By working with others. Something that you still haven't gotten a grasp on.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) Ok good, we are making progress. 2) We have ALL been "working with others", in spite of what you may think or want to believe, for along time on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have left Wikipedia a long time ago. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The word fundamentalism has become so utterly loaded I would abstain from using it in any context. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What can we say? This is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. Outside of Orthodoxy, scholars of religion use the word in this way. If your religious beliefs prevent you from using the same technical religious terminology that everyone else uses, then you may not yet be ready to work on these articles. Izak already is having serious problems, seeing these words as personal atacks against him and his religion, even though he has repeatedly been told otherwise. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Even the word "Jew" has become utterly loaded with negativ context; but we do not stop using the word "Jew". Instead, we educate readers by explaining what it really means. RK

I agree with you completely, JFW, and I wonder how anyone with common sense could think otherwise. Sorry, RK, the best academic scholars don't describe people and movements by throwing around loaded terms like "fundamentalism." I will also try to refrain from using it in any context, and to remove it if and when I see it. This, by the way, is despite the fact that I know certain Orthodox Jews personally who are proud to be called "fundamentalists" (but I know a great many more who are horrified by the thought). In a way, it is kind of like the term "Orthodox" itself - what began historically as a prejorative term used by reformers eventually became adopted as a badge of honor by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch himself! But I think that this is not likely to happen with the term "fundamentalist" for a variety of reasons. Better that it be avoided, and that we find more careful, nuanced terms to describe individuals and groups.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, who told you all that nonsense? What sources did you learn this from? These people lied to you. All the best scholars of religion, both Jewish and non-Jewish, often do use the word "fundamentalism". This is an indisputable fact, and only a hysterically ignorant, or dishonest, person will tell you otherwise. You really need to spend a few years reading through multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. You will find thousands of such referenences; and these references are non-polemical, non-hateful. The word "fundamentalism" is used by them in a technical sense. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
RK, please provide some citations for your assertion that Fundamentalism is currently used in multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 17:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OOOOPH! (That is modern Hebrew for Yiddish "Oy Vey" or English for "Why do I get involved in these things?") I've been "lied to" by "hysterically ignorant" or "dishonest" people? I need to spend a few more years in an academic library?
But to the point at hand: "Fundamentalism" is a relatively new term with deep roots and very heavy baggage in American political discourse. As time goes on it, like any new term, gets used more and more, including by academic writers both in the social sciences in general and by those who study Jewish communities in particular. And then it is indeed given a "technical" sense that is indeed meant by many writers to be non-polemical and non-hateful. But academic writers are not all the same. I once again assert that the "best" scholars are careful, nuanced, and usually avoid bombastic, laden terms. (In other words, they strive for "NPOV" in the academic world, for even there it all too-often remains an ideal that is not always real.) RK and I may very well disagree as to whom the "best" scholars are, or what the "best" kind of academic writing is (even by the very best scholars). In any case, I challenge RK to cite serious researchers in either the social sciences or in Jewish studies who would glibly label the following people as fundamentalists (this is completely ad-hoc): Yechiel Weinberg, Joseph Soloveitchik, Abraham Isaac Kuk, Moshe Feinstein, Isaac Hutner, Meir Bar-Ilan, Ben-Zion Uzziel, Nechamah Leibowitz, Norman Lamm, Shlomoh Riskin, Emanuel Rackman, Yehezkel Cohen, Nachum Rabinovitch, Yuval Sherlow - can one do justice to any one of them with "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"? It's ridiculous.
I am not going to continue debating this, especially since it has not remained civil. I am in fact quite peeved with myself for getting involved in the first place. The common sense of JFW's suggestion that we avoid the term is clear to me (also see further comments below). If and when this comes up for a vote, I will vote "No" to the use of "fundamentalist" as an objective, descriptive label for streams within Judaism.

Notice to Dovi about RK's "tactics"

Dovi please do not be intimidated by RK's personal insults, attacks, threats or bullying tactics. Unfortunately RK has a poor reputation on Wikipedia when it comes to respecting the rights of others on Wikipedia in general. For examples, even though the contexts were different, but RK always functions in controversial ways that have seem him partially banned at times. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK: "user:RK's aggressive editing tactics in the Wikipedian community of reverting articles, engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries, trying to goad editors into flaming him, trying to goad editors into wasting time engaging in edit wars over his reverts, and RK's use of editing tactics that should be classified as vandalism, even if they are currently not classified as vandalism. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)". And see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK2: "This user frequently engages in slander, distortion of issues, distortion of history of and reasons for edits, repeated insertion of non-NPOV material, and time wasting edit wars without rational or agreeable discussion. Description: This user has 1) repeatedly called users anti-Semites or accused them of spreading anti-Semitic viewpoints 2) misrepresented user views on Talk pages and maliciously spread libel about users on the Talk pages of various other users 3) engaged in rapid edit wars without adequate discussion 4) all subsequent discussion has consisted mostly of misrepresentation of other user views and of libel 5) made it difficult for users to focus on other work by maligning them and obliging them to respond 6) continued to emphasize opinionated, inaccurate and non-NPOV material in articles and rejected all differing views 7) repasted the same material in several places in the same article 8) when requested for sources, repeated the non-verifiable material as a source and claimed censorship upon removal of latter material." See also: "Eloquence temporarilly banned RK for "vandalizing" other contributors' user pages, and talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation, blanking them and replacing them with personal attacks. RK apparently did this in response to other contributors' leaving messages on his user talk page. User:AxelBoldt un-banned RK the next day. RK announced on the WikiEN-l mailing list that he was leaving Wikipedia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RK/Departure#Ban_RK.3F And so on and so forth. IZAK 04:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Also Dovi, read IZAK's post a second time and replace "RK" with "IZAK". It's equally applicable for the majority of the writing.--Josiah 05:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, now what a great JOKE that is!!! What would you call that in psychological terms, inversion or projection? Pretty pathetic Josiah when you begin to "imagine" that I am someone else out there. Wow. Shows how out of perspective you are. Too bad. So far my record on Wikipedia is excellent. I work hard at it and do my NPOV job. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

איזהו חכם? הלומד מכל אדם.

הווי מתלמידיו של אהרן הכהן: אוהב שלום, ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה.

First and foremost to remind myself.Dovi 12:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Removing Orthodox Judaism from "Fundamentalism"

With all due respect, the term "fundamentalist" remains a highly charged pejorative as it is associated with present-day Terrorism in most rational people's minds, and it is a blight and stain on the good name of any segment of Orthodox Judaism to be associated with that ugly word. Peace Now is no less a fundamentalism movement than anything "Orthodox". I put forth a motion that (certainly as self-respecting Jews) all efforts be made to extract the Orthodox Judaism paragraph from the fundamentalism article ASAP as it is an unambiguous anti-Semitic slur. IZAK 07:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic, but I'm not too impressed with its inclusion either. As far as I can see, the article basically says "Orthodox Judaism is different from other fundamentalist groups in all these ways, but it's still fundamentalist." Jayjg 16:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, and this is the basic difference between it and all the other Jewish denominations. Tos ay anything less would be Orthodox apologetics to hide this highly significant difference. Further, it is not an ugly word. We cannot rewrite all of Wikipedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand what the word means. Our job is to educate...not to rewrite the dictionary in order to appease fundamentalist Jews, Christians or Muslims. And please remember that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism. Wikipedia is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. We also have articles on all religions, and use the term "fundamentalist" there as well. All of the Orthodox POVs here aboput not using this word have already been seen here on Wikipedia from fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. And all have been rejected. We need to follow the same policy for all topics; we can't have special exception for the adherents of one religion. RK

12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you believe Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, but if it's true the article needs to explain why that is so. So far it seems to mostly contain handwaving of the "fundamentalists are Scriptural literalists, Orthodox Judaism is not Scripturally literalist, but it's still fundamentalist" kind. Jayjg 15:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(A) It is not a matter of anyone's belief. Given what religious scholars use this word to mean, it is true by definition. (B) In any case, the valid point you raise is a different point from that raised by Izak. On this point I totally agree with you.I think it would a very good idea to clearly explain what we do mean by this word, and to counter mis-nderstanding, to explaimn what we do not mean by this word. RK 13:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
We may be agreeing here, but to re-iterate, if the word applies, then it should be explained exactly how it applies. Assertions are not proofs. Jayjg 00:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am in agreement with you. RK
The word "fundamentalism" is defined by Webster's as meaning "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Regardless of whether you view Orthodoxy as a "movement", by that definition Orthodoxy is fundamentalist. And, for the record, I would also say that Karaite Judaism could be labeled as such also.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That is a rather monolithic view of Orthodoxy. Read Rabbis Kook, Soloveitchik, Hoffmann, Weinberg, or a huge host of more recent writers. Do they or the deep inner tensions that their writings reflect meet a simplistic application of Webster's definition? (Even if some of their students do!) Wouldn't a serious Conservative Jew meet the same test? Or an ideological secular Zionist? By throwing around the bombastic term "fundamentalism" all you really achieve is to say that certain people and communities are more ideological than others. There are much better ways to describe this.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
"fundamentalist" is generally only associated with terrorism when involving Muslims.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maybe some people in the general public believe that, but that is not correct. Most Muslims are fundamentalist, yet most Muslims are not terrorist. Our job is to get people to read the articles and become educated. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

As above, I agree with JFW that the term is heavily loaded (and this particular case I also agree with IZAK that it is commonly viewed as prejorative). It would be beneficial to use more careful, nuanced terms.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There are many different ways of pronouncing Hebrew words. It seems that most people want to standardize on the Sefardi pronunciation. There is a reason not to use that pronunciation and that is because most of the people using it are really ashkenazim and they switched to a sefardi pronunciation for reasons that were not necessarily in accordance with Halacha.

Yet, this dialect is now the most commonly used, and most outside readers will get increasingly confused if multiple spellings are given. Also, many people will pray in an older dialect while using "Israeli" pronunciation in daily parlance for ease of understanding. I vote to retain the status quo, and certainly to not start making long lists of dialectical alternatives. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The spelling is also not what most Jews would use, but seems to have been pushed towards some sort of quasi-scholarly spelling, in particular in the use of "kh" for "chaf" and "h" for "chet". This too is abandoned in a pinch; see for example the article on what Jews would term the "Shulchan Aruch", as you yourself have pointed out. What should the standard be? Jayjg 17:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mesorah Publications had the encountered the same dilemna, and decided to use a mixture, IIRC. --Josiah 02:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes. I've read about it in one of their introductions. I would like their rendering to be the default. --Ezra Wax 17:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with Ezra Wax! The Artscroll and Mesorah Publications form of pronunciation is horrible; they have been pushing this confusing hybrid for 30 years, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the rest of the Jewish community. Scholars of Judaism do not use this form of transliteration; neither do most other Orthodox Jews, neither do any non-Orthodox Jews. We should generally use the Sephardic transliteration, as this is what most Hebrew speakers use. Even ultra-Orthodox Jews who normally use the Ashkenazi pronunciation while praying can and do switch to the more commonly used Sephardi pronunciation on other occasions. RK 21:42, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you think only "ultra-Orthodox" Jews use Ashkenazi pronunciations, but that idea is nowhere near reality. And I must point out again, Modern Israeli and Sephardi are different pronunciations. Jayjg 07:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with RK in this regard. The ArtScroll is too much of a "mishgabibel" especially now with their interliniar transliterations driving people crazy. I vote we stick with "standard" Israeli Hebrew as it is basically the spoken language of close to half the world's Jews, even the Charedim in Israel speak Israeli (and NOT "Ashkenazi" Hebrew). What people do when they pray, whether they confuse themselves with Artscroll, mumble in English, fly in Ashkenazik, Sefardik or Chasidik is a personal matter relating to worship and has nothing to do with Hebrew as a SPOKEN and written i.e. LIVING language today. Your avergae (Jewish) person wants to know Israeli Hebrew and not be confused with other variants. So let's not add to that confusion on Wikipedia. IZAK 07:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying that if people, as a whole, can't agree to go with Artscroll's mess. Personally, I'd say sephardic also.--Josiah 06:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • At this point in time User Gilgamesh and User Mustafaa are on a spree creating massive havoc as they have undertaken to edit any Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli article and insert (at least) four varieties of "Hebrew", often including "Tiberian", "Yemenite", with "Ashkenazi", and anything else they can squeeze in. Why does Hebrew suffer from this on Wikipedia? Does, say, every article in English start of with the "American", "British", "Australian", ad nauseum way of pronouncing words??? Is Wikipedia the place for emphasis on phonetics, accents, pronounciations etc of words??? They should be encouraged to stop before they cause immense chaos and confusion. They even attempted to down-grade modern Israeli (Sephardic) Hebrew (spoken by almost half of world Jewry today), as just another "POV" brand of Hebrew no different to mysterious and defunct "Moabite, Edomite and Ammonite". This is what you call "chutzpah". IZAK 15:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I find what they are doing to be quite odd. However, I must point out that modern Israeli Hebrew is not Sepharadi. Jayjg 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok then, be pedantic, it's "sorta Sefardi" then, my point is that its "Baruch" for example, is closer to Sefardi than the Chasidik "Booreech" or Ashkenazi "Bawrooch". But I do not mean to be pedantic. I will tell you what they are up to: They are "shechting" the "Lashon HaKodesh" and making it into "Hebrew" alphabet "fruit soup" of no use to anyone really, and thereby stop the inroads of standard Israeli Hebrew as a common user-friendly Hebrew language. IZAK 17:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, on the request of Jdfwolff (on the issue of page style) and Jallan (on the issue of scientific transliteration), I went through hundreds of pages I had previously edited for Hebrew linguistics, and in nearly all cases eliminated all but two transliterations: Tiberian Hebrew and Standard Hebrew. Jallan had issue to exact scientific transliterations, so I started using scientific Unicode standards for both. Additional entries for Samaritan Hebrew, Arabic and Septuagint Greek are only added if the topic is relevant to Samaritans, Arabs, Muslims, Christian scholars, etc. The most affected article by far is List of Hebrew names — it has been given a magnificent overhaul in these regards. No more millions of alternate spellings unless they represent true variants with true phonemic differences in the same language. I've only done my best to respect and accommodate every POV on this very complex subject. I have already long since restored Standard Hebrew to the Hebrew language article. But the truth of the matter is, although Hebrew need not be presented as an unending soup in the articles, it is a soup in real life, and historically. And trailing off to categories and other articles, every flavor of soup has the right to be represented in parity with other flavors. - Gilgamesh 23:42, 14 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Gilgamesh, I'm personally very happy with the present arrangement. There is, indeed, a very big Shabbos chicken soup of Hebrew dialects, and I feel we should settle for an "Israeli Modern Hebrew" transcription, augmented by Tiberian Hebrew if you feel this adds anything.
As for other transcriptions, as long as Shabbos, Shabbes and Shabbas redirect to Shabbat there is no real problem at all. The vast majority of readers will not expect to see their dialect represented.
I'm a Dutch Ashkenazi, and (as I told you before) I use a dialect that is a hybrid between Western Ashkenazi and Portugese Hebrew. The word Olam (world) becomes [Ngaulom]. Yet it is - IMHO - completely irrelevant to have a fringe dialect represented here. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
My question is, why "Tiberian Hebrew" relevant? Who speaks this language, or uses it in any meaningful way? Jayjg 17:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's relevant to linguistic scholars and historians. Tiberian Hebrew is an especially important historical linguistic study because the vast majority of Hebrew liturgical dialects (including the Sephardic dialect from which Standard Hebrew arose) evolved from the standardized form of Hebrew drafted at Tiberias in the 8th century C.E. It's also been a basis from which the Hebrew Bible has been translated into various other languages, particularly during the Reformation when some Christians lost faith in the Latin Vulgate Bible, and questioned the wisdom of depending on a translation of a translation of a translation at all when they could use the original. Hebrew has a great many students of history as well, as it has been one of the single most influential languages shaping Jewry and Christendom, and both Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization. And Hebrew studies — while I think they deserve to be and will always be a part of Jewish study — will also always be a part of non-Jewish study of linguistics, history, culture and theology. As such, everyone in Abrahamic religion has a stake in Hebrew linguistic scholarship, whether it be practicing Jews like the respected company here, or Christians like me, or Muslims like Mustafaa, or even the Druze or the Baha'i. It's something we can all share, together. :) - Gilgamesh 22:44, 15 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
But why is the pronunciation of various words )(e.g. Kabbalah) relevant in "Tiberian Hebrew", particularly as those words might not have ever even been used in "Tiberian Hebrew"? Jayjg 05:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
One important thing I forgot to mention - Tiberian Hebrew is the oldest standard of Hebrew to have its vowels and consonants completely distinguished and standardized. It is of significant importance to linguistic study and comparative Canaanite linguistics and Semitic linguistics as a whole. Hebrew isn't the monopoly of a single religious group or ethnicity. It belongs to everyone. This really has nothing to do with how Hebrew is used in Judaism nor Jewry. Wikipedia is a place of dispassionate secular science without endorsement of a single culture nor religion. And I am here as a scientist in the field of linguistics. - Gilgamesh 06:17 July 2004 (UTC)
Um, ok, but could you please answer my question now? Is it your intention to insert into Wikipedia articles the "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciation for words which never existed in "Tiberian Hebrew" to begin with? Jayjg 06:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh, I misunderstood the question. Well, I suppose it doesn't have anything to do with Tiberian Hebrew, except perhaps that Tiberian represents the origin of the liturgical dialects. The relevant question here would be, did non-Sephardi Qabbalists pronounce the word in Sephardic Hebrew or in their own dialects? For example, did any Ashkenazim pronounce it Kabboloh? If the answer is no, then I suppose Tiberian is not relevant to that issue. But if the answer is yes, then Tiberian would be a good older phonemic representation of Hebrew that unites the etymological differences between the dialects, which are, afterall, dialects of Tiberian Hebrew. Jdfwolff told me, afterall, that there are simply too many dialects to represent them all, so representing the keystone standard and the modern standard at the same time seems like an equitable compromise. - Gilgamesh 07:06, 16 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using a "keystone" standard, you seem to be saying that because Ashkenazi Jews pronounce it Kabboloh and Sepharadi Jews pronounce it Qabala that we therefore need to present instead its "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciation, even though the word might never have been used in "Tiberian Hebrew", and indeed the language (and in particular its pronunciation) is only a linguistic hypothesis to begin with. I recognize that there are a large number of Hebrew accents/dialects, but there are only 4 or 5 in common use today, and of those 1 or perhaps 2 are dominant in everyday usage. To say that we cannot present the dominant, or even common Hebrew pronunciations of words, but instead must present a hypothetical construct which no-one in real life uses, and which may never have been used, seems, at best, to be absurd to me. Jayjg 07:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree, Jayjg. I did try to include several dialects before, but Jdfwolff as an administrator admonished me not to. I trimmed it down to just two, and he told me it was acceptable to his recommended conventions. I guess we need to strike a bargain between detail and formatting, and Jdfwolff is okay with this, and so am I. Besides, merely the exact IPA pronunciation of Tiberian is subject to guessing; its phonemes are well-documented and not a source of conjecture in this case. That's why there's such a well-established scientific transliteration for the Tiberian form. This standard transliteration is provided in academic textbooks for scholarly Biblical Hebrew study, at least in universities. So, the main purpose of Tiberian Hebrew is not a description of pronunciation, but of phonemic detail. It has five clear short vowels and seven clear long vowels, and a separate transliterative form for every Hebrew consonant, including sāmeḵ and śîn. It is an elegant approach to presenting the phonemes of Hebrew words in the most detailed way available to scholars. Gilgamesh 7:49, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with just two, but "Tiberian Hebrew" simply doesn't make sense for most of these articles; in fact, it's a bizarre anachronism to write the "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciations of words and concepts that were never spoken in "Tiberian Hebrew". Modern Israeli and Ashkenazi are the two most widely used dialects today; Sepharadi Hebrew is usually quite close to Modern Israeli, but where it differs from Modern Israeli it could be included as well. "Tiberian Hebrew" might be relevant for articles dealing with subjects upon which "Tiberian Jews" had something to say, but it doesn't belong anywhere else. And, to be frank, "Tiberian Hebrew" is in reality a dialect invented and used by a few hundred academics, and is not "mainstream" in any meaningful sense. It doesn't really belong anywhere except those academic publications, but regardless, in no articles does it make sense for "Tiberian Hebrew" to come first. Jayjg 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, alright. You bring up one good point: Maybe Tiberian should come second after the modern Standard. That'll be easy work for me. I'll swap their positions immediately. But my point for Tiberian Hebrew remains. :) - Gilgamesh 22:53, 16 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As for fonts and white boxes that we've been seeing around lately, that's actual a separate issue dealing with a separate POV debate still going on over the forced use of specific fonts in Wikipedia's CSS. It's received many complaints precisely for the reason that it makes many Unicode characters undisplayable for normal visitors using Internet Explorer. I for one, when providing academic detail, consider this not to be my problem, and I continue to use mandated Unicode characters when it is the standard for an orthography. (Jallan threatened POV dispute if I didn't adhere to this. :P) Since it appears that popular opinion over the style sheets issue is resoundingly against forcing specific typefaces, I hope simply that common sense will prevail and that Wikipedia's style designers will yield control back to individual web browsers. I'm not going to compromise the Unicode. - Gilgamesh 7:49, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

  • Gilgamesh: With all due respect, I think you are holding up or inserting the proverbial "red herring" by latching on to this "Tiberian Hebrew" gobbledigook, and thereby in effect sowing confusion and sadly NOT creating enlightenment. No-one but you and some obscure pedantic liguists know and care about the existence of "Tiberian" Hebrew, and we don't need it spreading itself like measles onto the faces of all Wikipedia articles with Hebrew words. I agree with User Jayjg, it is COMPLETELY UNnecessary to insert a reference to "Tiberian" Hebrew every time a Wikipedia article has Hebrew words in its introductions. To what lengths will this go... will an article on the Israel Defence Forces or the name of Ariel Sharon be subjected to Gilgamesh's obsession with pasting in "Tiberian" Hebrew? What a joke that will be and make Wikipedia look plain idiotic as no Israeli and modern Hebrew speakers, who just happen to account for close to half of present-day world Jewry, would take it seriously. (Unless of course Gilgamesh is on a "crusade" to re-indoctrinate the Jews with far-fetched theories that mean nothing in practical terms to Jews or anyone else.) In any case, the whole notion of having a few Hebrew words SPRINKLED into an ENGLISH language article is to give it some authenticity and relevancy which is best done by following the "KISS" ("Keep It Simple Stupid" ) rule, especially when Hebrew is an alien language to planet Earth's six billion inhabitants. So let's get rid of Gilgamesh's pedantic insertions and intrusions into the area of Hebraica on Wikipedia (his fonts are also messy and don't work a lot of the time, leaving gaps in words), unless they are within normal bounds of PRESENT-DAY modern Israeli Hebrew usage. If anything, it would make more sense to insert references to the still widely used (in prayers and Torah and Talmud learning) Ashkenazic Hebrew, but that too would be much too confusing were it to be done en masse if plastered and pasted every time a Hebrew word pops up in Wikipedia. So let's get a handle on this soon, before the mess will be too big to clean up quickly. IZAK 04:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • IZAK, if you're going to disagree with him, fine. I don't see a need for Tiberian either. But QUIT THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.--Josiah 06:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Hebrew name

For article on Hebrew name User Gilgamesh and User Mustafaa are having a ball tearing up the turf. Using fonts and systems that just come up as "little boxes". It's a case of a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as they "decide" on their own the meanings of Hebrew language words from the Torah and Tanakh sometimes using little more than guess-work. IZAK 16:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outline of articles

Most articles seem to have the following parts:

  • Introduction
    • Various synonyms of the title of the article
    • Domain of the term i.e. In Judaism ...
    • Short definition of term
  • History
    • Ancient History
    • Recent History
    • Current Practice
  • Treat according to denomination
    • Orthodox
    • Conservative
    • Reform
    • Other

Problems with this outline: Treatment according to history tends to emphasize that current practice is different than present practice. This emphasis tends to be an effort to promote the idea that laws change and therefore more conservative viewpoints are too conservative.

No, it doesn't promote the idea that more conservative ideas are too conservative. That is your interpretation of the facts. All it does is prove that history exists. Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews, however, wish to replace the historical point of view with their distorted view of Jewish history, one in which Abraha, wore a kipa, and Cain and Abel studied in a yeshiva. Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we study a religion's development in its historical context, which shows us that all religions and develop and change over time. Anyone who denies the existence of such change is probably so ignorant as to be useless to our project, and so biased as to be unable to conform to NPOV requirements. RK
On the other hand, it confirms the historicity of certain laws and customs when these are continued into daily practice. For example, mikvah mentions that "Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah". Etc. JFW | T@lk
Saying that "Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah" is problematic. Better would be to say, "Unfortunately many Jews have abandoned halacha and have stopped using a mikva."
Perhaps "While Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah, many Jews due to to laxity in observance, or rebellion against rabbinical authority, have ceased to do so." --Ezra Wax 17:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Unfortunately"? "Abandoned"? It is highly unlikely that these amazingly POV and normative words would last long on Wikipedia. Jayjg 02:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg. It is also a serious violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to promote any religions practices or beliefs. However, we can write that According to Orthodox and most Conservative rabbis it is unfortunate that many Jews have abandoned halacha and have stopped using the mikvah. Such a statement is in accord with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. RK

Treatment according to denomination emphasizes that there are denominations and legitimizes them. This tends to be contrary to the view that denominations are mostly irrelevant and that there are those who are more particular about observance and those who are less so.

Yet, apart from Orthodoxy, the denominations seem to be quite comfortable in this split. Recognising the existance of these movements and their policies is troublesome from an Orthodox POV, but for the purposes of Wikipedia it seems to be the only tenable solution. JFW | T@lk
The point is that Orthodoxy is not a movement in the sense that it moved away from what was before. It was using established principles to react to a changing situation. As such it is not a movement. The other denominations might be movements, but they are not Judaism. The point is that the non-Orthodox want to legitimize themselves by calling themselves denominations.
See this is the problem. I totally disagree. Many historians have proved that Orthodox Judaism is a movement, and that it has moved away from what was once before. I can provide numerous references. It would be more accurate to say that Most Orthodox Jews believe that their beliefs and practices are the same as the beliefs and practices of previous generations, while some Orthodox Jews and most non-Orthodox Jews believe that even Orthodoxy has changed significantly in the last 200 years. RK 13:45, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
2 points to consider 1)On the opposite perspective, one could say that Orthodoxy wants to legitimize itself by saying that the Non-Orthodox are not denominations. 2) When some of the early Reform Jews classified themselves as "of Mosaic Persuasion" or "the religion of Moses", they were criticized even more for abandoning the use of "Judaism". 3) The entire issue of whether or not denominations are, or are not, legitimate is a theological one. I suggest the issue be dropped, since Wikipedia is not a place to debate theology. --Josiah 01:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The non-Orthodox movements would, in fact, state categorically that Orthodoxy today has indeed moved away from what it was before. I doubt you'll get any agreement on this outside of the Orthodox world. Jayjg 19:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject categories

If the project branches out endlessly it will have more trouble defining its subject matter and will attract more edit warring that is warranted. The secret of keeping this project succesful and viable is limiting its scope for the time being. JFW | T@lk

I agree with JFW here. What are everyone's thoughts on merging some of the categories together, if possible?--Josiah 02:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
At this time the categories are both sufficiently broad enough yet are divided logically. How on Earth would one combine categories with over fifty articles with others of a similar nature? We are not dealing with morons, any person with average intelligence will be able to very quickly find whatever they need simply and efficiently with the present categories. A lot of thought, time and work has gone into the Category:Jews and Judaism. Who is to blame that Wikipedia contains thousands of Jewish-related articles? We have to work with what we've got. IZAK 19:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Topics That can use Templates

  • Jewish Books

(See Category:Jewish texts)

  • Rabbis (geonim, rishonim, acharonim)

(See Category:Rabbis)

  • Halachos of Shabbos

(See Category:Jewish law and rituals)

  • Prayers

(See Category:Jewish law and rituals)

  • Holidays

(See Category:Jewish holy days)

  • Time periods in Jewish History

(See Category:Jewish history)

  • Masechtot and/or Sedarim of the Talmud

(See Category:Mishnah and Category:Talmud)

  • Books of Tanach (Hebrew Bible) (this template is functional)

(See Category:Torah and Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh

  • Jewish cities
I don't understand; what is a "Jewish city"? A city built by Jews? A city that has mostly Jews in it? A city in the State of Israel? All Wikipedia articles on cities should have the same format in all cases. RK 03:04, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with RK in this regard. It is better to just call them places or geography. Contextually in an article it will be understood to what extent they were or are "Jewish".

See:

IZAK 06:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Bible

I would like to make a radical suggestion related to the above two points, and to the next one. Every culture and religion on WP has its its literature discussed objectively and fairly (hopefully), but nevertheless merits articles presenting it as part of that culture. In the case of Judaism and Christianity, however, because the canon is partially shared, there is a great deal of conflict, implied bias, and a deep sense that a meaningful picture is hard to paint within some of the articles. This is especially true for the biblical books.

I think most of us would agree that reading the Bible is two different "worlds" in the Jewish and Christian traditions. (I write this as someone who was and is involved in interfaith activities, including study groups. The meeting between the two worlds can be fascinating and meaningful, but they remain two different worlds.) Therefore, I suggest the following radical idea: That articles on the biblical books be parallel. I.e. one article on the history of Christian interpretation and study, another on the how the book was and is studied in the Jewish traditions. These articles need not be POV: A "Jewish" article, for instance, can and must, for instance, discuss how Christian exegesis influenced Jewish study, how Jewish study has been influenced by modern theories, etc. But there should still be to separate articles. How to give them titles would also take some thought. Do people agree with me?Dovi 20:08, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I think the idea of two articles makes a lot of sense, each one linking to the other at the bottom. Jayjg 15:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jewish news box

What was that Jewish news box that appeared in the Jews and Judaism article? How is it maintained? Who decides what goes in it? Jayjg 15:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the box, but I'm not sure where to put it. For now it is on my user page. If you wish to put it on a page you can add the following to your page (You can only see it in edit mode):Template:JewishNews
If you want to edit it there is a link to edit it. --Ezra Wax 02:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How are the items in it updated? Jayjg 02:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Click here: edit. There is also a link in the box itself. If you want to add an item, just copy a previous item and change it. You can also edit the items in place. Each line in the table begins with | and each line has to be separated by |- as you will see if when you edit the table. --Ezra Wax 03:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So people would just decide for themselves what "Jewish news" was worthwhile noting? Jayjg 15:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ezra Wax has taken it upon himself to insert this into many articles. On their own, many other Wikipedia editors removed it. I agree with the removal. Not that I am against having Jewish news, but it seems inappropriate to have Jewish news in all of our Judaism articles, Christian news in our Christianity articles, etc. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. RK

IZAK spamming his arguments to his blog

Pardon me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the discussions of this project (and other wikipedia discussions) were supposed to stay on Wikipedia. Is it appropriate to put it on a blog, without notification of the people involved? http://simshalom.blogspot.com/

Well, all contributions to Wikipedia are protected by the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. IZAK has the right to use the content as long as he follows the rules of the license. - Gilgamesh 2:07, 17 July 2004 (UTC)
  • The use of the word "spamming" is not applicable or justified. It is not even accurate. What on Earth can be wrong with placing verbatim PUBLIC discussions on a Blog, as no changes are made to the words of anyone? IZAK 20:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, maybe nothing. I'm fine with it. I keep in mind that everything I post anywhere on Wikipedia becomes subject to the GNU Free Documentation License. In short (but not complete details), it means that you are free to copy content here, as long as you adhere to the terms of the license (requiring it to be free information), and make the license readily available in all derivative works. So, if you post it on your blog, you need a copy of the license and adhere to it. And anyone who copies that blog will need a copy of the license too and adhere to it as well. The GNU FDL ensures that free information remains perpetually free, so it restricts making it proprietary. All information posted at Wikipedia becomes covered under the GNU FDL as a condition for it being posted. So I suppose all you need to ensure is that the logs you post on your blog are posted with a disclamation of the GNU FDL, and a requirement that anyone who copies the text must also read it and adhere to it. - Gilgamesh 23:17, 19 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh: Done. Thank you for your gracious insight. I have placed the applicable links for info on GNU Free Documentation License at the start of the relevant articles. IZAK 00:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll be honest IZAK. Mainly I'm annoyed because you lied to me when you said you had only posted certain argument about Karaism a while back on my user talk page, and the Jew talk page, when in fact you also posted it to your blog as I recentely found out, and other areas.--Josiah 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah face it, if all you can resort to is name-calling and acting like a cry-baby about public posts that inherently do NOT have "privacy" restrictions on them, then it's just nit-picking. I think that what YOU are doing on Wikipedia is far more serious: Every reference to Karaism is being twisted and altered to reflect YOUR own POV which is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess). IZAK 03:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Practicing Ad Hominem again? Assuming I twist every reference to Karaism (which I don't), you are accussed of the exact same things in regards to Orthodoxy often. However, the fact is that I've worked with others on the Karaite pages I work on to show *both* sides. The current Karaite Judaism page is a perfect example. This shouldn't have spilled on to here, and for that I apologize to everyone. All I ask is, in the future IZAK, tell me the truth when you tell me something. [even if it "is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess)"] --Josiah 05:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, you make it sound like we are in some sort of "relationship" or something. Is there anything else on your personal "menu" for me? I guess you must get a kick out of talking with me, a cute little "rabinite" as you call them elsewhere... IZAK 05:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Not even in my worst nightmares would that happen. You must get a kick out of putting words into my mouth.--Josiah 05:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciations Part 2

On many articles Pronunciations are extremely, IMO, wacked up with "scientific" transliterations. Wikipedia is not the Scientific Weekly, or a Hardvard Research project. 90% of the people reading them would not have any clue as to what they were reason. For example, the Josiah page transliterates my name as "Yošiyyáhu" - why not keep it simple so everyone can understand it - "Yoshiyahu"?--Josiah 02:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe that can be a third transliteration, as I told you in private message before. But we cannot remove the scientific info; encyclopedias are supposed to educate people who don't know the material, and not simply tell certain visitors what they already know. Vernacular Israeli Hebrew is as valid as Standard Hebrew in this matter. However, we still need to strike a balance between detail and colloquial familiarity. Also, Jdfwolff bought up a very good point before — there are too many transliterations. Even within Israeli Hebrew alone there are often lots of different individually preferred spellings for the same name. Standard Hebrew transliteration is a perfectly equitable compromise, very conservative of its spelling detail. (Tiberian Hebrew aside from this particular issue; Tiberian is the second name listed in each entry anyway.) Also, I have found that when I use simplified non-standard spellings, they are disputed by scientist editors. And I respect science and standards (both old and new), so I have yielded to its application. - Gilgamesh 03:13, 18 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]
In front of me is a small Hebrew & English Diciontary by Dr. Reuven Sivan and Dr. Edward A. Levenston, New York: Bantom 1975. It is mostly modern Hebrew with Tiberian pointing. The English preface states:

The Hebrew column in both parts of the dictionary is given in plene spelling, in accordance with the latest rules of the Hebrew Language Academy. All the relevant additional letters yod and vav have been inserted so that the user cann identify the word in the form in which he will encounter it in all modern books and newspapers. On the other hand the full and precise pointing has been aded (except for the silent sh'va) thus ensuring the precise pronunciation of each word.

Other dictionaries are similar. Tiberian pointing is hardly dead and is still the standard way to indicate vowel pronunciation as well as appearing in almost all reader versions of the Tanakh. Of course one could use pointed Hebrew in the Wikipedia, except that the average Hebrew fonts available to many don't add proper pointing. Also transliteration has its benefits. Probably no reader is equally fluent in every alphabet, abjad, syllabary and logographic system for every language. It is useful to enter names and words in the original characters of a non-Latin script for those who can read them (as transliterations are sometimes not dependable for fine details and because the words in the original characters can be copied and pasted into search engines for searches using the characters of the original scripts). But if I'm talking about linguistics between languages or just want to present a foreign word then I am far better off and most readers are far better off if I use Latin-letter transliterations which don't depend on a reader knowing three different Indic writing systems, the Ethiopic syllabary, Hebrew writing, paleo-Hebrew writing, Ugaritic cuneiform and Persian cuneiform, Linear B and so forth.
It also helps if the transliteration system used is a standard one, widely employed, and complete enough that those who do know any of the source character sets can translate the form back into the source character set with accuracy 99% of the time. Accuracy is more important than simplicity when simplicty doesn't fully represent the original spelling.
The scholarly systems of transliteration used for Semitic languages, including Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac and so forth do allow someone who knows only one or two of the languages being discussed to follow a linguistic discussion. Their fullness and their conservative nature means that one familiar with them and familiar with a modern dialect of the language can usually correctly guess the pronunication of the word in the modern dialect. They are used in slightly varying versions in almost all journals and books coverning Semitic languages, in dictionaries and grammars of Classical Hebrew, and in almost all Biblical commentaries (whether written by Jews, Christians, or atheists or anyone else).
You can mostly get modern Sephardic, Ashkenazic and Yemanite pronunciation out of Masoretic Hebrew and out of a full Latin letter transliteration of Masoretic Hebrew by ignoring certain sounds and making certain regular changes. You can't do this well with a modern transliteration with ignores the differences between letters which in Hebrew are distinct. And you can't properly compare cognate forms in other Semitic languages, living or dead.
To some degree the modern semi-standard transliterations of Hebrew are kludges intended for typewriter use or ASCII use when better means are unavailable. Unicode is making better means available. Fonts, many of them free, are listed at sites like Unicode fonts for Windows computers (most of them also usable on Macintosh and Un*x machines). On the Macintosh, if a requested character is not in the current font, the system will search through the fonts (trying to do so first in those closest in style to the current font) until it finds the character and will then display it. Such a character will probably to some degree mismatch in style with the surrounding characters, but at least the character will be there. The Mozillia web browser and Mozilla-based browsers like Netscape do the same searching under Windows and under Un*x systems. The browsers are free. There is no reason why anyone who cares about special characters shouldn't be able to see them. And systems and readily available fonts are improving in this area to the point that I expect that within about two years it will be a very small percentage of viewers who don't see automatically see all characters used in standard Semitic Latin-letter transliteration. I would expect fully pointed Hebrew could also be used in Wikipedia with similar expectation that most users will see it correctly and that almost anyone who cares can configure their system to see pointed Hebrew correctly.
Unfortunately such transliterations are still not unambiguous. From Yôšiyyāhû alone one would not know that the second consonant of the name is alef rather than vav. One could transcribe Yōʾšiyyāhû to make this clear, but that would obscure the fact that the Masoretes indicated that the alef was quiescent in their pronunciation. Perhaps Yō(ʾ)šiyyāhû? But people don't do that. Parentheses would normally be used only to indicate that a letter was sometimes included in a form and sometimes missing.
Still, a transcription that distinguishes between all emphatic consonants and the corresponding unempahtic consonants, between bet and vav in all cases, and between alef and `ayin has an advantage. It shows more about the original spelling. It is more accurate.
As to 90% of the people reading such a transliteration not knowing exactly what the various diacritics mean and so forth, that goes for almost all transliterations. Presumably anyone who wants to know more details can look up the information in the Wikipedia under the name of the language or script. I would imagine about 90% of the people who look up information about a certain animal or plant don't understand or appreciate the scientific classification totally, especially when they are not familiar with the part of the animal or plant kingdom to which the entry makes reference. But obviously it must be there for the benefit of those who do understand it or who want to understand it. Similarly there are numerous mathematical articles in the Wikipedia which are probably opaque to 90% of its readers and many more that are partly opaque. One may expect specialist technical information to appear in any article in Wikipedia when it is germane to that article. Those not interested in that information can skip over it.
Technical transliterations generally used by linguistic scholars for any languages are important in the same way that the scientific names of plants are important, to be skimmed over by those not interested but to be used by those who are.
And of the various transliteration systems used for Hebrew, the slightly varying forms of the standard scholarly transliteration system (despite its general inability to handle quiescent consonants distinctly) is the best standard method at representing in Latin Hebrew as it is written with Tiberian pointing, regardless of dialect. The system has been in general use with slight variations for over a century and is used universally in for Semitic languages generally and for Classical Hebrew.
Jallan 07:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh man... That was just unbelievable. I am speechless. ... Can you be my personal translator? :D (j/k) You make my paragraphs look like complete gibberish. You ooze clarity on impressive levels that I never dream of. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 09:41, 18 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterations

I see mentioned "Israeli Sefardi transliteration" and "Artscroll quasi Ashkenazi transliteration" but I can't seem to find articles on Wikipedia about either of them? Where should I be looking? — Hippietrail 02:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The documentary hypothesis

The documentary hypothesis has nothing to do with Christianity; that is a strawman attack used by some Orthodox Jewish writers to delegitimize it within the traditional Jewish community. In fact, most Christians don't accept it at all. Similarly, the modern form of the documentary hypothesis, which has been developed over the last century, does not rely on the early and anti-Jewish ideas of Julius Wellhausen. That too is is a strawman attack used by a few Orthodox writers to delegitimize it within the traditional Jewish community. I don't know of a modern-day single adherent of Wellhausen's specific views. RK 00:25, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Who claimed that the Christians invented it? I find the idea absurd.--Josiah 03:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is how it started, see: Higher Criticism and Radical Criticism: "Higher criticism originally referred to the practice of a group of German Biblical scholars centered in Tübingen, including Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), who began in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to analyze the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times, in search of independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible. They are the intellectual descendants of John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel, and the French rationalists." On Wikipedia IZAK 05:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It's an outright lie to claim that the first three were Christians, when they all disbelieved the bible, according to their Wikipedia pages. I didn't bother to check up on the other persons.--Josiah 05:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's with the "outright lie" business? All of them were Christian theologians, were steeped in the Christianity of their present day culture in Germany and had their roots in it. Otherwise why would they be so fanatically and "fundamentally" obsessed with the Bible of all things, they could have pursued hunting or something full time instead no? Why is it important to defend them, by checking on their level of Christain observance, when what they did is indefensible Judaicly speaking? You lack an understanding of how permeated with (the Christian) religion Western society was at that time. IZAK 05:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=4765812"