|WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.This page is within the scope of |
||This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.|
Threads older than 45 days may be archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
I need help on the Semitic neopaganism page. It is being repeatedly vandalized, over a years long period, by someone who has a grudge against one of the listed groups. This page is about modern day groups that have neo-pagan beliefs, and are open about it (for instance, openly discussing their beliefs and the gods they pray to by printing prayerbooks, siddurs, discussing them on websites and in interviews.) But one Wikipedia editor is censoring this position, apparently trying to present one modern day neopagan group (Kohenet) as if perhaps they were Orthodox Jews. They aren't. Members of Kohenet offer prayers to Anat, Asherah, Lilith, and other deities. I do understand the the person opposing me wishes that Kohenet were Orthodox Jews, but they simply aren't. Wikipedia needs to be a place for groups are described accurately. We can't falsely write about Protestant Christians as if they are really Catholic; we can't write about neo-pagan Wiccans as if they are Muslims, etc. We merely need to be accurate. Thank you for your time. RK (talk)
Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of JudahEdit
There is a discussion @WP:BIBLE#Templates:Kings_of_Israel_(Samaria)_and_Kings_of_Judah to possibly remove Template:Kings of Israel and Template:Kings of Judah completely from articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving notice here. By the way, the proposal isn't as radical as you make it sound here, rather the proposal is to replace those two templates with another template that includes both of them and is better than they are. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Some more input is needed in the discussion, Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Requesting Consensus for changes in Template:Rulers of Ancient IsraelEdit
In August, I had changed with this edit from "Israel (northern kingdom)" to "Samaria (northern kingdom)" on Template:Rulers of Ancient Israel in hopes of completely distinguishing the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the United Kingdom of Israel, alas though, I was reverted. I know that having (northern kingdom) in brackets should help distinguish the two, but it's pointless when the name Israel is referred twice to represent two different monarchies. I would like consensus to change it to Samaria (northern kingdom).
Now Athaliah's name is in italics. I don't know why it is when she was the sole ruler of the Kingdom of Judah after Ahaziah of Judah, but I would like to remove the italics.
And finally Tibni. Even though he was a contender for the throne after Zimri (king), he was eventually defeated by his opponent Omri in a civil war, making Omri the true successor. That being said , Tibni's name in the template is after Zimri. That is an unnecessary confusion and I would like to remove his name. That's all. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- From top to bottom:
- The article about Tibni makes it clear that he is mentioned among rules. So he has to stay.
- Please remove all italics. They are completely illogical and random. There are 4 of them in the template.
- The article about the Northern Kingdom is at Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), so it seems we should keep Israel. Moreover, at least the Jewish sources use almost exclusively the name "Israel" for the northern kingdom, not "Samaria". Debresser (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- Debresser I removed italics on Tibni and Athaliah, but I could not do it with Simon Thassi and John Hyrcanus because they were not monarchies. I wouldn't be suprised if someone reverted me for removing italics on Tibni though. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- You mean to say that they weren't "monarchs"? The article about Simon Thassi says "He became the first prince of the Hebrew Hasmonean Dynasty. He reigned from 142 to 135 BCE." The article about John Hyrcanus says "reigned from 134 BCE until his death in 104 BCE". So why not? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- And even if they weren't, is that reason to add italics? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, neither of them took the kingship title. I was learning more about the first king Aristobulus I while expanding and improving the article along with Alexander Jannaeus. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see anything wrong with removing the italics. I'll do it and link this discussion in the edit summary. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"Not officially recognized as Israel"Edit
User:Supreme Deliciousness has undertaken a series of edits removing the country "Israel" from places in West Jerusalem. This is entirely inaccurate; West Jerusalem is and always has been under Israeli sovereignty. It's East Jerusalem and places in northern Jerusalem, like Ramot, that are under debate. Could an administrator help with revising these edits? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- A. I dont see the relevance to WikiProject Judaism, B. it depends on the country on if West Jerusalem is recognized as Israeli territory or not. For the most part there is at least tacit acceptance that West Jerusalem is Israeli territory, but states such as the UK continue to consider all of Jerusalem outside of any states sovereignty. nableezy - 14:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I agree, and this has been the consensus for a while. It's also not Jerusalem,Israel in one link but separated to show that. There was a discussion about this on the Jerusalem page a while back.
No part of Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel. This includes West Jerusalem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's not true though, many countries recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel, whether it's all of Jerusalem or just West Jerusalem. Australia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Czech sort of does, the US does, Guatamala does, Brazil is going to, Taiwan does, etc. Regardless, you should know that making such mass changes without discussing it first in such an area is controversial and not encouraged. You should have gone to the Jerusalem talk page and sought consensus. What you did is disruptive. Changing years of consensus within minutes without talking about it. That is not collaborative. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Concerning Brazil, you can not guess whats gonna happen in the future. The other nations are only literally a handful of nations. So there are around 200 nations that do not recognize any israeli claim to Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem. So all of Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem is disputed, yet you want to violate npov and present a fringe minority pov as fact. There has never been any consensus to present West Jerusalem as "Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- AFAICT most NEWSORGs report West Jersualem as Israel. Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Show me a reliable source that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as part of Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I also saw this extreme POV edit by Supreme Deliciousness, and reverted it in one instance. He is wrong about the facts, and could likely be banned or blocked for these edits. In any case, he is right, that in many cases there is no need to add the "Israel" part, e.g. in this edit, just like it doesn't say NY, US, we needn't say Jerusalem, Israel. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Banned or blocked for what? All the articles I edited said "Jerusalem, Israel" Not "West Jerusalem, Israel" but only "Jerusalem, Israel" so they were claiming all of Jerusalem is Israel. No part of Jerusalem including West is internationally recognized as Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- You are blowing tyhings out of proportion. Jerusalem, Israel means that the relevant issues of the articles are in Jerusalem and in Israel, if you want in the Israeli part of Jerusalem. Nobody means to say by that that all parts of Jerusalem are in Israel. I am sorry, but sometimes we simply can't stop with the city, and a country must be added for clarity, and you are being disruptive about this. That is why you should be sanctioned. If you saw an issue, you should have discussed it, not made unilateral POV edits. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- They are not in Israel as no part of Jerusalem is Israel and no one has been able to show any evidence that West Jerusalem is internationally recognized as Israeli despite me asking several times.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a far-fetched redirect, in view of the sources he provided. But see this edit, which is at best an honest logical fallacy. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Please note the Mandate for Jerusalem was never implemented as the Arabs rejected it. The only legal status for Jerusalem that pertains is League of Nations 1922 under which Jerusalem is in the region which became Israel. User: Celebrate Israel 18:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Short descriptions for Chabad RebbesEdit
Hi guys, long time Jew first time poster on WT:JUDAISM. User:debresser and I were having a disagreement and he suggested that this would be the most appropriate forum to bring the discussion to (thanks for the advice btw). The seven Chabad Rebbes currently have the short description “First Chabad Rebbe,” “Second Chabad Rebbe,” "Third Chabad Rebbe,” etc etc which seems to go against WP best practices as discussed at Wikipedia:Short description, specifically the idea that the short description be accessible to those without a previous knowledge of the subject. My proposal is to add a descriptor to the current “X Chabad Rebbe” to make them something along the lines of “Russian-American Jewish leader, Seventh Chabad Rebbe” so that they can be readily accessible to those without a knowledge of this very specific corner of Jewish history. Anyway thats what I was thinking, would love to hear some other opinions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- This proposal sounds better than your previous edits, which had only the first half of your current proposal. I would stick with "Orthodox rabbi" rather than "leader" though. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Time and the vehemence of your response caused me to question whether my first edits were complete enough. I mean no disrespect to them by using leader rather than Rabbi, I’m trying to avoid confusing people with the whole Rabbi vs Rebbe thing as well as make it as assessable as possible to the largest possible audience. The meaning of “leader" is clear to someone who doesn't specifically know what the religious leader of a Jewish community is called. Perhaps “Orthodox Jewish Leader” or “Hereditary Orthodox Jewish Leader"? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think the word "rabbi" is known to the wide public and more specific than "leader". It is also the word commonly used in such cases. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see Chardal where an editor moved the page back to Hardal and changed the lead to say that the primary term is Hardal and "also Chardal." I think this is incorrect and should be changed back. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Please open a discussion on the talkpage there. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I do image restoration, particularly of images from about 1700 to 1924 (images later than that are rarely out of copyright). I'd like to help out with some Judaism-related images, but I could use a little direction. User:Adam Cuerden will give an idea of stuff I've done in the past. If you know of anything high-resolution (or feel like poking around, say, https://gallica.bnf.fr or https://loc.gov for ideas) I'd love to hear them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7% of all FPs 02:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on the issue at hand. AddMore-III (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosh Hashanah on the front pageEdit
Just an FYI for the first time in more than a decade, Rosh Hashanah will not be on the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- And why is that?
- And, another question, why should it be? Especially when it has been there every year for a decade, as you said. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Debresser, it was put back on real late, it was tagged for references but it was fixed up so it was put back on. But I think that certain dates that are special should have leeway and not be tagged so hard or it should be given dispensation so that it be included on the Main Page even if it has some issues. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see. Agree with you on that one. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- You guys know I agree with you. But we've been through this before, and have been told in no uncertain terms that Easter and Xmas aren't immune, either. So I don't think we'd win this.
- What I worry about more is that there's a risk that someone could come sweeping through and start tagging the page very close to the holiday (or on the holiday), and the three of us (and others) would not be in a position to fix, revert, or anything else. So I do wonder if we can set up a system for a short list of days where there would be a time point ahead of the holiday (for illustration, 00:00 UTC on erev yom tov, or erev Shabbat if yom tov is Sunday) where if there are no disqualifying tags on the page, the page gets fully-protected until its main page sojourn has passed.
- My initial list would be RH, YK, and the three regalim (including their end days, if they get a separate listing). I'd probably also put Purim and Tisha B'Av on, since even though we could theoretically be on-line, often we're not. (I'm not as sure about Chanukah, Yom Ha'Atzma'ut or Yom Yerushalayim.) If you guys agree with this idea, I'd bounce it off of Howcheng, and if he is agreeable, he can implement, as he's a sysop. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Forgot to ping: @Debresser and Sir Joseph:. G'mar hatima tova! StevenJ81 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea and I usually try to remember a few days before an event to post it here anyway, but I was busy this time being railroaded. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe this should have "synagogue attack" or "synagogue shooting" in its title. See discussion. I believe the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident is Halle synagogue attack or Halle synagogue shooting. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)