Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style

Biblical text

I've expanded the guidance on sources - identifying some sources that are standard in biblical research and adding some information about modern trends in biblical criticism. The material needs citations but I've got a wiki backlog and its going to take time for me to get around to preparing proper footnotes. I thought it was important though to add them even sans citations since they largely support what should be a truism from 4th grade on - don't write an essay relying on a single source.

I also think my writing is a bit wordy and complex. I'd be grateful if someone wanted to copy edit what I've written.Egfrank 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable torah sources

There seem to be a number of places where editors have used the phrase "reliable Torah sources". In some cases, it seems simply to be an attempt to define "what's Jewish". No one would object to a more neutral definition using secular terminology. In other cases, I wonder if the author really wants Wikipedia to focus on "the Truth" and wants to protect the reader from being mislead.

In this case I replaced the phrase because I think the editor meant the former. However, I think there is a larger issue here that needs to be addressed. Torah and Wikipedia reliability standards are not necessarily synonymous. Torah standards of reliability have as much to do with the goal of study (mitzvot, yirat hashem, ahavat Israel, tikkun olam, etc) as they do the content of study. As a (former) Hebrew school teacher, I would not want to use up some of my precious classroom time discussing every single view point that Wikipedia (or even the academic world) considers relevant. I would choose to focus on those that deepened my students understanding of Torah and their obligations as and joy in being Jews. I don't think I am alone in this.

I realize it is easy to confuse the goals of Torah and the goals of Wikipedia. It is impossible to ignore the thought that Wikipedia is the likely first stop for an uneducated Jew wishing to learn more about their Judaism. But Wikipedia isn't designed as a kiruv tool, it is an encyclopedia. There are many fine kiruv tools out there - let's let them do their job and lets focus on ours. Egfrank 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

From the User_talk:egfrank page:

Hi! I appreciate your efforts on the Manual of Style but beg to disagree with you on one issue. You recently made a change from a reference to all sources reflecting the "Torah" viewpoint (admittedly rather badly worded) to a reference to medieval commentators. My personal view has been that reliability of a source is determined within a field of expertise. Orthodox Judaism regards itself as a field of expertise and, whether or not one agrees with its outcomes, it has a self-correcting peer review process for determining which individuals are considered experts and which viewpoints are considered notable and acceptable within that community. Accordingly, the community's position has always been that sources that have been published and are considered reliable within the "Torah community" are reliable for Wikipedia purposes because they reliably articulate a notable viewpoint and have been vetted by experts in that viewpoint. This has been the position of all administrators from the Orthodox community and has historically been the position of the Judaism WikiProject. Although the statement of this position could be better and more neutrally worded, I don't recommend unilaterally departing from it without discussion. I particularly disagree with changing to a reference to "medieval commentators". It's vitally important for this community to have the ability to explain its contemporary situation and offer contemporary viewpoints, and we have to have the ability to have the sources generally used to articulate notable contemporary viewpoints considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia guidelines provide some flexibility to support this; for example, the fine print in the verifiability and reliable sources say that it's OK to quote a self-published work (such as a letter from a figure like Moshe Feinstein or the website of a well-known Yeshiva) if the author has been determined to be a notable expert in the field through published sources. Part of my job in dealing with the general Wikipedia community has been to advocate for the need for this leeway continuing and to explain the special sourcing problems of religious topics and editors. I also don't believe that undercutting the ability of the Orthodox community to have its sources for articulating its contemporary positions considered reliable creates any general advantage for the purposes of the Encyclopedia or benefits anyone else. Once again, doubtless this special need of the Orthodox community could be articulated in better and more neutral language that more closely tracks existing flexibility in the guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad you responded. I absolutely can't imagine how we could have any reasonable discussion of Jewish thought without including the gaonim, rishonim, and more modern thinkers like Moshe Feinstein. I only limited the list to medieval commentators because the paragraph was about figuring out the meaning of rare words. It was my impression that interest in philology moved out of the yeshiva and into the academic world around the time of the haskalah. After that point the yeshiva tended to quote older sources rather than do their own research, but if there were noted philologists in the yeshiva world of the 19th and 20th century, by all means we should include them.

Part of what is going on here - I think - is a dance between the language of academia and the language of the yeshiva. Both are rich sophisticated intellectual traditions. The best possible article should be comprehensive in the eyes of both worlds. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I would hope we can strive to that goal. To make it a reality we need to explain the language and standards of each world to the other.

In the context of the yeshiva "Torah source" is shorthand for a long list of sources that have a high level of trust when explaining Jewish text and halacha. If we want people in the academic world to understand what that means, we need to explain who is in the list. I started a partial list in the bible verse section, but it was by no means complete. I was rather hoping some one would add a section after the medieval commentators to include the bright lights of modern Torah study from both worlds: people like Samuel Hirsh, Moshe Feinstein, Nehama Leibowitz, and Aviva Zornberg should certainly be in the list. The Halakhah section also needs to be fleshed out.

But maybe there is also another issue. Not only do we need the manual of style to explain how the other half thinks, but we also need to see ourselves in it. We need to be able to say - Yeah! that is what I think is important. So may be we need to include the phrase "reliable torah source" or something like it, because if you are from the yeshiva world - it means something to you. With that in mind, shortly before you wrote to my user page, I reworked the paragraph to include that phrase. Please feel free to rework it further. Kol tuv, Egfrank 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the OP of this thread "Orthodox Judaism regards itself as a field of expertise and, whether or not one agrees with its outcomes, it has a self-correcting peer review process for determining which individuals are considered experts and which viewpoints are considered notable and acceptable within that community." - actually, that is true of EVERY SINGLE MOVEMENT. For example, CCAR maintains a complete listing of all of their responsa - as well as bullentin boards, conferences, academic literature and other ways of discussing a rabbi/congregation may follow 1 of 2 responsa, and how norms over these resposa develop, how someone is seen as a Gadol b'torah (and what and why that means from the reform perspective), ect. Just because it doesn't follow the same process at all from a metahalachic and sociological point of view as what happens in Orthodoxy DOESN't mean it doesn't happen. The fact that Wikiproject: Judaism is ok with it is a profound example of the blind leading the blind- there should be a suspicion of an Orthodox Point of View in editing in terms of what counts as a "reliable Torah Source" because what it is really being shown to the reader is what is ok vs not ok to the reader on how to interpret Jewish texts for everyday practices. By doing so nd allowing these opinion, passively or not, you've set up the average reader to accept an orthodox discourse when entering a Reform Syngague- and that is neither fair to that reader or that synagogue. In order to be fully sensitive to a truly NPOV involving Judaism topic pages, one has to pound the pavement and make sure that non-orthodox views are fully represented, even for something as simple as what would be considered a "Torah Source" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.247.175 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Zohar

added it to a couple of places but maybe too prominently. perhaps it should just be included in the list of medieval commentaries? I hope others will figure ou the best thing to do, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

G-d

Hi there. Some articles on Jewish matters use "G-d" rather than "God". Obviously that's correct in quoted material, but otherwise, I feel this violates WP:NOTCENSORED. The G-d article-section would suggest it does. Any comments? Regards, jnestorius^(talk) 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand that section correctly, it means that you should not censor other people's material, not that you can't be respectful in your own. But I personally would spell it out, because it is electronic.Mzk1 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Scope of project

Biographies

As I, an outsider, see things, there are basically only a few types of biographies to be considered:

• (1) biographies of individuals who are directly relevant to the Jewish religion (the Judaism project, maybe?)
• (2) biographies of individuals who are directly relevant to the history of those who are biologically or culturally "Jewish", possibly excepting those who are exclusively relevant to the Jewish religion (Jewish history, maybe?)
• (3) biographies of individuals who are, on some other basis, related to the general subject of Jewishness. (I honestly don't know which group would be involved here)

Ultimately, my own favored solution to this matter would be to create one parent project which encompasses within its scope the scope of all the related more focused projects, have the more focused groups determine their scope, and allocate accordingly. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your category descriptions are not very clear. I would say there are only two categories, and I'm not sure we need to treat the two categories separately. Here are my two categories:

• 1) Those persons who have had a major impact on Jewish topics (on Jewish philosophy, on Jewish religion, on the land of Israel, or on a large bloc of ethnic Jews).
• 2) Those persons who have done something of note, or have had something of note done to them, due to their relationship with Jewish topics (e.g., people made famous primarily due to their Jewishness, or have led Jewish causes).

OTOH, exclude notable persons who, absent either of the above two categories, do not have notability particularly relevant to their Jewishness and whose Jewishness is not very relevant to their notability.

Examples: Benjamin Disraeli might be included under #2, since part of the reason he is well known is that he was the "Jewish PM," but otherwise would be excluded. Scarlett Johannsen happens to be Jewish, but that doesn't qualify her under either #1 (she hasn't done anything Jewish of note), or #2 (her Jewishness does not in any way drive her notability, and what she is noted for doesn't really drive her Jewishness in any way). Ben Gurion wouuld qualify under either category.

Dovid (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on capitalization of messiah

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Capitalization_of_messiah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Section on Gregorian calendar (BCE) dates and WP:NPOV

I am disputing the Gregorian calendar dates section that cites WP:NPOV to support the idea that BCE/CE should be used in articles related to Judaism. Firstly, this isn't very specific, because many articles that could be considered related to Judaism are also related to other Abrahamic religions (i.e. Christianity), and I'd also like to hear a good argument as to why BCE/CE is more "neutral point of view" than BC/AD in the first place.

I see these two notations as directly comparable to the pagan days of the week and the Quakers' "neutralized" alternatives. While the pagans' Wednesday is based on the religious deity Odin and the Quaker alternative of "Fourth Day" is arguably more "neutral", we still do not use the latter because it is not notable enough, and because we do not even consider Wednesday to be POV because it is a commonality in the English language. I think BC/AD should be treated the same, and that BCE/CE are just as biased, because they claim that the Christian/western-centric Gregorian calendar and era based on Jesus' birth should be considered "common" to all people on Earth, regardless of the fact that there are dozens of other calendars and epochs to choose from. If that's not biased POV, I don't know what is.

Thoughts? I know the BCE bit was added by one mere user in 2007 without any prior discussion, but it has now influenced the MOS (WP:ERA) and I'd like to see it removed here so the bit added to the MOS can also be removed. I'd like to have some discussion on it before just boldly removing it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems very broad. Do we really want to use CE on Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild and Heinrich Heine? How about Madeleine Albright? (We do fine, as with most modern biographies, with an unlabelled date; nobody needs a label on 1914.

If it was intended to say that certain fields of scholarship normally use CE/BCE, so we should follow the sources: that's already in WP:ERA, and doesn't need to be loosely approximated here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The text is extremely specific: Gregorian calendar dates on Jewish topics should generally refer to BCE and CE for years.

So let's not mince words here. It doesn't vaguely say that "certain fields of scholarship normally use CE/BCE". It specifically says 'Jewish subjects'. Just don't ask me how we are supposed to understand what's a Jewish subject and what isn't. The text doesn't define that. Flamarande (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And nobody else, except of course Date Warriors, can define it either; that's what I mean by vague; and why it needs to go. On the other hand, you can tell whether (say) Hillel studies "normally use BCE/CE": look at half-a-dozen papers or books on him and see what the field actually does. (If you're editing the article, you may have them in front of you; if not, try your bookshelf, or Google Books on "Hillel".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding your correctly ("it needs to go") you're in favour of challenging this particular policy and eliminating/deleting it? If I'm mistaken please correct me. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm in favor, not of challenging, but of changing, it. We editors write policies and guidelines; we write this page too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:EN added

I have added WP:EN, a little concerned that the Manual of Style as it stands is actally counter general Wikipedia guidelines. Also other sections appear to need a review in regard to whether the Manual promotes CONTENTFORKS vs other Abrahamic religions, which is okay, or tends to POVFORKS? But it's mainly WP:EN which was missing In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC) .

Name of God

The policy on the usage of "Yahweh", "G-d" and "Jeho-va" etc. is not very consistent in my opinion. Reading one of the only other religious manual of style, the one on Islam, we read:

""Allah" should be replaced with its translation, "God", unless used as part of an English-language quote. Also, the first occurrence of "God" in the article should be something to the effect of the following: God. When referencing a deity by a personal pronoun (e.g. "he" or "his"), the pronoun should not be capitalized except as demanded by standard grammar (i.e. in the beginning of a sentence, but not in the middle of one). Refer to the Manual of Style's section on capital letters."

Currently it seems like we have some double standards here - Islam articles mustn't have "Allah" (except in quotes) whilst Judeo-Christian articles use "Yahweh" or names of God with letters missing, which may I add is done for religious reasons (respect) similar to the Muslim honorifics AS, SA etc. that they give to their prophets.

So my opinion is we should adopt the same policy as MOS: Islam, i.e. we must use the word "God" without missing letters and without using "Yahweh" etc. unless the page is about that name of God or unless it is used as part of a quote. I see no reason to uphold these different standards - in my opinion the usage of both Islamic honorifics and Jewish literary jurisprudence has no place on Wikipedia (again, outside pages on those topics, or quotes) as they connote non-neutrality. Hesnotblack (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)