Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

 Main Discussion Board Members Article Assessment Templates Categories Resources Manual of Style To do New Articles Articles for Deletion Sister Projects Watchlist 

Discussion Board Discussions relating to Wikipedia's coverage of Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top)

Aleph Institute

Would members like to create a page about the Aleph Institute N.E. Region. Current page is only regarding Florida branch. Helpfulguy101 17:34 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC

Shem HaMephorash, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Morris Soller

Hello WPJ. I have created Morris Soller and have probable but not sufficient information. Because I have not done this before WPJ's input is welcome at Talk:Morris Soller. Thank you in advance. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 February 2022 (UTC)

How to treat approbations/haskamot as sources? Content dispute on Yosef Mizrachi page

In the talk page of Yosef Mizrachi, there is a question about how Wikipedia treats haskamot/approbations found in books by the subject of the entry (Yosef Mizrachi). One view is that the approbations can be used as a source for their writers' opinions about Mizrachi - is there a standard practice or policy with these approbations? Relatedly, the book in question is published by Haketer institute which one editor believes confers reliability on the approbations. I appreciate that this may be a question for the Reliable Sources noticeboard, but is anyone familiar with this publisher, or can weigh in whether this is valid? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The framing of the question about publishers and accolades with a qualifying statement about adding opinions distracts from the two essential points you wish to clarify. If there is a desire to raise a third question about whether editors are allowed to add their opinions, the answer remains 'no.' A more direct approach would be to address the two key questions you posed: firstly, whether accolades can be cited according to Wikipedia guidelines, and secondly, whether publishers confer credibility on the sources they publish (the answer is yes).

Regarding your first question: given that accolades are the appropriate means to cite such information from a book, and the form in which statements of support typically appear in Jewish literature, it appears unjust to require it in a different form.

In response to your second question, the suggestion that publishers do not enhance the credibility of the books they publish doesn't align with convention. Reputable publishers bolster the credibility of the books they publish through rigorous vetting processes. Their involvement and track record contribute significantly to the trustworthiness of the work. If it's not the publishers, then what other factor would enhance the credibility of these works?

Haketer Institute, specifically, has a track record of publishing substantial works. For instance, a quick Google search reveals they've published heavyweight titles like 'Yalkut Yosef' by the Chief Rabbi of Israel. They have also been recognized with prestigious awards, including the Rav Kook Prize. It's not entirely clear why you have such heavy scrutiny of this publisher. If you have original research suggesting they are unreliable, we're open to seeing it. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is a desire to raise a third question about whether editors are allowed to add their opinions, the answer remains 'no.' No other opinions about reputable sources are allowed on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia? Really?... the suggestion that publishers do not enhance the credibility of the books they publish doesn't align with convention. Reputable publishers bolster the credibility of the books they publish through rigorous vetting processes. Their involvement and track record contribute significantly to the trustworthiness of the work. Is the Institute for Historical Review therefore also to be considered a publisher which enhances the credibility of books they publish? They publish a lot of books for a niche audience too. They even have an article here. Define rigorous vetting processes. Taking your points at Talk:Yosef Mizrachi § Recent changes to lead and career section a little further, if Willis Carto were to write an approbation for David Irving in which he lauded him as a 'brilliant historian', should we then be able to state this fact in his lead paragraph? If you have original research suggesting they are unreliable, we're open to seeing it. Who is 'we'? Since almost 3/4 of your edits here have been about Yosef Mizrachi, I will ask you again: Are you editing on behalf of Yosef Mizrachi, his family or his organisation? Havradim leaf a message 00:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Institute for Historical Review is often seen as an unreliable publisher, raising valid concerns about the trustworthiness of the works it produces. It's interesting to note that this choice of example inadvertently strengthens the argument via kal v'chomer: reliable sources typically enhance the credibility of the materials they cite, whereas less reputable ones may have the opposite effect. In contrast, the HaKeter Institute is an award-winning publishing house with a strong track record of heavyweight titles.

While we anticipate feedback from fellow editors regarding citation rules for accolades and the influence of publishers on credibility, we should avoid making baseless claims. Allegations of conflicts of interest or connections to Yosef Mizrachi can be harmful and are inappropriate. My Wikipedia contributions align with the platform's guidelines. Due to my limited availability, I usually focus on just a couple of articles at a time. Let's concentrate on content and refrain from casting aspersions, adopting a confrontational tone, making unwarranted assumptions, or weaving false narratives.

Remember, this page, like all online content, is a public resource. Maintaining a respectful and constructive atmosphere is crucial for collaborative editing. Consistent editing standards should be applied, and the removal of substantial sections should only occur with community consensus. Bullying will not be tolerated, and logical discussions on the talk page are essential. While I have concerns about other sections not even mentioned yet, I haven't made any changes yet because we are awaiting input from other editors on these points first, and I expect that restraint to be reciprocated. As you previously mentioned on the talk page, the article is quite sensitive, and we should proceed with caution. We should wait for input from others and heed the advice you've shared.

Characterizing my talk page contributions this way is misleading and unhelpful. I've noticed that you continue to remove quotes from reliable, non-primary sources, which raises concerns. Accolades are an appropriate way to cite statements of support, and they often enhance the credibility of a book, especially when they come from reputable publishers that conduct rigorous vetting. If it's not the publishers, what other factors contribute to the credibility of these works? And if not accolades, in what other form do statements of support typically appear in Jewish books? These are not rhetorical questions; they require answers. Without evidence suggesting unreliability, there is no justification for deleting text that adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

Furthermore, you've removed unrelated content Arutz Sheva without discussing it on the talk page, such as Rabbi Mizrachi has "revolutionized the use of social media for Orthodox Jewish outreach and has spoken to irreligious audiences throughout his career." Let's refrain from making such deletions without prior discussion. Does that make sense? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Havradim: I find your approach to be hostile and there are polices in place against this.

Point of View (POV) railroading is the use of bullying tactics to discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or to eliminate them from a discussion. Railroading tactics can include frustrating the editor, hostility that discourages them from participating, or creating a false narrative that misrepresents actual events or edits in order to discredit the editor. These tactics are used to win an argument or take control of an article or topic area by focusing on the editor rather than the edits and editing process.

Editors may attack or discredit another editor using a distorted interpretation of Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. They may quote policies in misleading ways, by citing them out of context, with extreme interpretations and without relevant disclaimers and exceptions. In other cases, a "policy bomb"—known as "alphabet soup"—may be used to overwhelm an editor with accusations of violations so numerous and so vague that the targeted editor feels intimidated.

Tactics can include continuously and exclusively referring to a user in a negative manner, the continuous use of personal attacks that escalate in severity over time and the casting of aspersions in a generalized manner, without providing any actual qualification for the claims, such as diffs, instead basing claims upon proof by assertion.

Another tactic is to continuously mislabel the target as a disruptive editor in various venues, in deliberate attempts to mischaracterize entirely normative, civil and functional actions as deviant. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the propriety of using rabbinic approbations as a source for praising an article subject. In this case, it involves Reuven Elbaz and Yitzhak Yosef approving (allegedly—the source is offline) of Yosef Mizrachi. Samuelshraga and myself are not keen to include it, and you are. That means that you currently have no consensus to include it, so the WP:BURDEN falls on you to prove it is worthy, which you have not done so far. My contribution here is done, pending the input of others. In the meantime, I am letting you know that while your input is welcome here, your walls of text, WP:BLUDGEONing and WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour are not. Havradim leaf a message 05:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my perspective on the source's status and the ongoing conversation. The source under discussion is a published book by HaKeter Institute, so it's not an offline source. If you've been following the talk page and discussion with Samuelshraga, this would have been evident.

Steam-rolling a disagreeing editor with Wikipedia policy and guideline violations is against Wikipedia's code of conduct. I added the description of POV railroading above for your reference. To facilitate better communication, let's avoid vague alphabet soup references to policies and characterizing contributions as 'walls of text', which suggests you didn't even read the response to your questions. Each sentence was carefully considered, and it's important for both of us to feel respected in this conversation.

To find common ground and reach a consensus, could we perhaps consider potential solutions together? I value your input and perspective. At this moment though, I'd prefer to hold off on further messages until we've had a chance to hear from other editors. Thank you for understanding. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote. You said The Institute for Historical Review is often seen as an unreliable publisher, raising valid concerns about the trustworthiness of the works it produces. Why do you suppose that might that be? Could it possibly be because they espouse Holocaust denial? Well, this Haketer Institute you are using purportedly agreed to publish Mizrachi, someone who engaged in Holocaust revisionism. Although he apologized, I haven't seen anywhere that he walked back his belief that only 1 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Therefore this source, which you've not even provided a link to in order to verify its veracity anyway (offline—we have to take your word for it) should not be depended on for the above reasons. Havradim leaf a message 07:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Rabbi Mizrachi did not engage in Holocaust revisionism, and I intend to update that section of the article in the future. He said that not all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust are halachicially Jewish, and he is correct. Someone with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is halachically not Jewish. For the Nazis, they are one and the same, but halachically, they are different. He was taken out of context, and apologized for this. I will address your concerns in the future. At this moment though, I'd prefer to hold off on further messages until we've had a chance to hear from other editors. Thank you for understanding. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying that 5 out of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust weren't Jewish? Havradim leaf a message 08:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I never said that, G-d forbid, and frankly, it doesn't matter, we are discussing Rabbi Mizrachi's views on the Holocaust, not mine, which you brought up. If you look at his actual quote however, he never said it was 5 million and never implied any of the horrible things you're suggesting. Happy to discuss this at a future point, and that section of the article definitely needs editing, but right now we should continue to wait for input from other editors on the outstanding items before taking on others.

The Mishna (Kiddushin 66b) states that if a child’s mother is not Jewish, the child is not Jewish. And this in fact is the halacha codified in the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 8:5), and in Rambam’s Mishna Torah (Forbidden Relations 15:4).

https://ohr.edu/7242 Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems he said it once on tape, and then retracted. Our source on the matter says, "In his comments regarding the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, Mizrahi claimed that the level of intermarriage across Europe before the Second World War was 80 percent, and that five million of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust were therefore not Jewish according to Jewish law since Jewish law requires a person's mother to be Jewish ... The rabbi continued saying 'I have been shown the accurate statistics and I realize that those that were not halachically Jewish were a very small minimal number,' adding that he had not wished to offend any holocaust survivors or their family members." [1] But if the number is that small, why bother mentioning it at all? Does it really make any difference if we say 100% of the 6 million were Jews, or only 98% or 95% were? The article says that he comes from the financial sector, so how could he make such a mistake of 78 or 75 points? Maybe he meant to say that 80% were Jewish, because they did not intermarry? You stated He said that not all of the Jews who died in the Holocaust are halachicially Jewish, and he is correct. Do you know what his corrected estimate actually is? Havradim leaf a message 10:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing most "Judaism in Foo" entries

Is it intentional? Judaism in Germany, Judaism in France, Judaism in Poland, Judaism in the United States are all redirects. Comapre to Hinduism in Germany/Buddhism in Germany, Hinduism in France/Buddhism in France, Hinduism in Poland/Buddhism in Poland, Hinduism in the United States/Buddhism in the United States etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it answers your question, but this recent discussion touches on it, even if only just a little bit. Havradim leaf a message 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I am indeed curious if it has been decided by the community to not create such articles (Judaism in Fooland) or if this is just an accident. Arguably, history of Jews in Fooland and Judaism in Fooland are closely related topics, but they are not 100% identical. For example, there are plenty of reliable academic works discussing the concept of Judaism in Poland. I am thinking about creating a stub or something a bit longer on this topic, unless someone tells me I shouldn't? To quote from this article, entitled Judaism in Poland: "Our subject matter, Judaism in present-day Poland, is narrower than would be that of" Jews in Poland". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, you could definitely create unique articles for all of those which are not the same as the history of Jews from that place. Andre🚐 04:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Judaism in Poland for example, I understand that there are sources. What I am struggling with is how would the proposed article relate to current articles such as History of the Jews in Poland, History of the Jews in 18th-century Poland, History of the Jews in 19th-century Poland, Jewish–Polish history (1989–present) and Hasidic Judaism in Poland? While the latter is a major field of study in its own right, the others also contain a fair amount of discussion about Judaism. And specifically in regard to the latter, is the proposed article going to be about little more than the contents of History of the Jews in Poland before the 18th century § Jewish learning and culture during the early Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Havradim leaf a message 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I havent's started researching this topic seriously yet, but I'd assume some duplication of content would occur. Some content might be candidate for merging too. Btw, Judaism in Poland currently redirects to History of the Jews in Poland, but for now, shouldn't we at least make it a disambig given the existence of Hasidic Judaism in Poland that you pointed out? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Jewish history is not the same topic as the religion of Judaism and its various sects and an overview of their present extent or historic and activity. Judaism in topics seem like a good idea to the extent that it would be an overview article of the various topics about the groups that describe themselves as Jewish in that region, as opposed to the historical narrative of Jewish people that inhabited that region. There is probably however a need to discuss and propose and publicize such a change, since as you point out, the lack of separate "Judaism in" topics might have been an old consensus that was obtained for some good reason, such as to avoid too much duplication of content. If we do create new articles like this, we should agree on the scope, but I think it would be OK to write a new "Judaism in Poland" article that would not be the same article as any of the others listed here. So if you want to create it, I suggest you do read those other articles first, improve them if you can, and maybe then create a new one. Andre🚐 01:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What about simply redirecting Judaism in Poland to Hasidic Judaism in Poland? The proposed target article has a piped link ([[|History of [the] Jews and Judaism in Poland]]) to History of the Jews in Poland right at the top of the info-template (is that a word?) so that even a hatnote would not be necessary. The info-template also has links to the other articles mentioned above. In this way, I believe the reader's quest for information would be amply addressed in the meantime. By the way Piotrus, I had no idea that you've been around here for this long. Havradim leaf a message 05:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it true that most Jews today in Poland are Hasidic? I do not know, but I doubt it. Andre🚐 05:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Today? I don't know, but that isn't the point. The redirect more closely matches the proposed target in scope. And there are ready links right at the top of the proposed target to all the "History of the Jews in Poland" articles anyway, so those are covered as well. As far as Hasidic Judaism is concerned, it became the major stream of Judaism in Poland right up to WWII, so it probably includes the lion's share of the topic. Havradim leaf a message 05:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but how does "Hasidic Judaism" match the scope? That is a very specific sect of Judaism, not at all representative of the whole. And do you have a reference that it's the major stream in Poland? Certainly, prior to WWII, there were something like 3 and a half million Jews in Poland, who undoubtedly were also numbered among them misnagdim, reform Jews, etc. For example, just randomly, I found Beit Warszawa Synagogue. It's a synagogue in Poland that is presumably part of Progressive Judaism. Andre🚐 05:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you read my response carefully, you would see that I was referring to the situation in pre-WWII Poland—obviously, the Holocaust changed everything. Historically though, Misnagdim was more of a Lithuanian phenomenon (Germany never had a plurality of Hasidim either). From this source we find: While [Agudath Israel] considered itself to be the guardian of ultra-Orthodox Jewry as a whole (seeking to unite Polish Hasidim, Lithuanian Misnagdim, and German Neo-Orthodox), it was largely dominated by the Polish Hasidic element, and its leadership generally reflected this domination. (emphasis added). By the way, when we speak of Hasidic Judaism, we are also referring to adherents of nusach Sefard, some of whom are not outwardly Hasidic, but cannot be classified as Misnagdim either, i.e. those who profess to follow nusach Ashkenaz. So yes, at least in recent memory, Polish Judaism was mostly Hasidic. Optimally however, Judaism in Poland would cover earlier and later periods also. In regards to the proposed redirect, we are speaking here of a stop-gap measure only. Havradim leaf a message 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The text you have emphasized refers to Polish Hasidim but does not support the claim that Hasidim were the majority of Polish Jews. It simply supports the claim that Hasidic Jews were the majority of Orthodox Jews, but says nothing of Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Neolog, or other non-Orthodox Jewish groups. Wodziński, Marcin; Cozens, Sarah; Mirowska, Agnieszka (2005). Haskalah and Hasidism in the Kingdom of Poland: A History of Conflict. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-904113-08-9. suggests that pre-WWII there was indeed a conflict between the maskilim and the Hasidim. Andre🚐 07:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Point well taken. In any case, I would like to hear Piotrus' opinion on this. I think the redirect might better be left alone. A dab page seems a bit overkill to me, but I might be persuaded yet. Havradim leaf a message 07:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt I'll have time to write up that article anytime soon - at the same time I doubt it would get deleted at AfD, since sources exist and topic is notable, per cited academic paper ([2]). And it looks weird that we have main articles for even minor religions in Category:Religion in Poland (and similar categories in other countries) but not Judaism (see also Template:Religion in Poland), compare with Islam in Poland or Buddhism in Poland which are pretty much trivia/footnotes level in importance yet have articles, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

PS. As for the redirect, rather then retargeting it, disambig should solve all of the issues raised above, I think? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Odd "Jewish intellectual studies" article

Hi all, I'm not a part of this WikiProject, but I saw Jewish intellectual studies while looking through the New Pages feed, and thought this might be a good place to bring my concerns, as it feels very oddly written and I'm not sure if there is precedent is for this type of article (and if it should be kept, reworked, merged, deleted, etc). I've started a conversation on Talk:Jewish intellectual studies, but I haven't heard back from the article's author yet. Thanks! ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems the article and talk page are already gone. Dan Carkner (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Effort to delete cat via merge

This may interest some people here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_women%27s_basketball_players 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A043:72FB:85CE:2E30 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It won't. This IP address is going rogue. This is part of a bigger discussion for Category:Jewish sportspeople as per WP:OC. @Marcocapelle, pinging you here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)