|
Coca-Cola refers to "Passover Coca-Cola - a Kosher for Passover Coke made with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup," with a reference to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/19/religion.uk
I assume from this that corn syrup is not Kosher for Passover. Could something on this be added to Corn syrup? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, corn syrup is regarded as rabbinically forbidden as kitniyot because it's a derivative of corn (known in Europe as maize), and is not eaten or used on Passover. Thus Coca Cola uses cane sugar instead for its kosher for Passover sodas and drinks, and in fact even non-Jewish Coke lovers love this change because it is an annual partial revert for the kosher consumers to the way Coke used to be made in the USA with cane sugar before they switched to corn sugar that all can enjoy. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (I believe you meant to say cane sugar, not corn sugar. I have edited your comments accordingly. Jon513 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, we have to be careful to avoid local bias here. The status of kitniyot are a disputed matter within Rabbinic Judaism. Sephardic Jews (Spanish/Mediterranean origin) do not prohibit eating kitniyot like corn on Passover at all. Ashkenazic Jews (Northern European origin) do not eat it, but as a custom, not as a rabbinic decree. However, it should be noted that processed foods like soda require preparation under supervision, and because the overwhelming majority of Jews in North America are of Ashkenazic origin, kosher supervising authorities enforce the ashkenazic rules here. It might conceivably be possible to get certified kosher for passover Coca Cola containing corn syrup bottled in a country with a lot of Sephardic Jews. I wouldn't know if this actually occurs. However, any statement made should be qualified -- it applies in North America and under Ashkenazic rules, but not necessarily universally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many Sephardic Jews in practice follow the customs of the Askenazim too in recent times (even though in "theory" they are not required to) not wishing to differ and to seem too lenient. But thank you Shirahadasha for the added nuanced input. IZAK (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks all. Again, I hope that some note on this might be added to Corn syrup. I don't feel that I'm the person best qualified to do so, but if nobody else does, I'll add something after a day or so. Thanks again. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the all "Minaag" (custom) of kitniyot is now considered as irrelevant by some orthodox Ashkenazi rabies in Israel and some of those are now suggesting to declare it as such (but I don't know how it will go, and anyway, the all knowledge of mine in this subject is coming from the Israeli secular media). We must remember that from the first place it started because that in Europe mostly kitnyot were mixed with leftovers of leavened food and the reason it wasn't cancelled yet is to keep people out of confusion people and not to make them to hold the "mitzvoth" cheap.--Gilisa (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gilisa: As you admit, your comments are coming "from the Israeli secular media" and they are the last ones to be relied upon or trusted for any comments concerning any of the Halachik aspects and laws of Orthodox Judaism. The laws of kitniyot apply in all their stringencies until the present time according to all known and trusted Halachik authorities, rergardless of the "historic tales" that may or may not underly them. There is a principal in Jewish law that states: "minhag Yisreal Torah hi" ("[Jewish religious] customs [of] Jews/Yisrael [becomes a part of the] Torah" [i.e. Jewish customs that are adopted are "observed" as if it they are something that comes from the Torah itself]) so that many "customs" let alone outright rabbinic promulgations are continuously observed regardless of any changes in historical circumstances. The moral of the story is that it is entirely not advisable and plain wrong to enunciate upon or about Jewish religious observances and principles based on those who oppose religion such as those "from the Israeli secular media." Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for responding, but there are customs that can be change when it comes to traditions that are related with certain "eda" (a word that has no good parallel in English, the closest is "ethnic group") - so it was along the history. And anyway, when it comes to "kitniyot" we are talking about a "chumra" (stringently). when a Sephardic Jew marry an Ashkenazi girl (and it happens a lot outside the ultra orthodox groups) she is dismissed, according to the hallach, from keeping the customs of her "eda". there is also the idea of "atarat nedarim" ( vows loosening- but I don't know if it can be applied to dismissing one from his "eda" customes) - it have nothing to do with the non orthodox groups, I am talking only about authentic Judaism-and this custom dont look to me as one which cant be change, but I'm-as you are I guess, not a "posek" (adjudicator). Anyway, a mitzva that cant be change for example-is to live in Israel in the first possible moment, so said the Torha, the Talmud and etc, but it seems to me that there are ultra orthodox groups that will give their lifes to keep on the "kitniyot" idea, but will do nothing to keep other "minor" Jewish ideas.--Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all,
I left a post regarding the above few days ago. For now it seems like nobody is willing to take the initiative and to make his article much better (had my English was better, than I would do it), as easily can be done -however-still didn't. There are many high quality sources regarding the significance and extent of Gersonide's work, sadly, he is still downgraded- a mistake that easily can be repair.--Gilisa (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It requires someone with a decent knowledge of the philosophy of the rishonim. I've personally never learnt the Ralbag and I understand he was not without controversy. JFW | T@lk 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was aiming to his scientific work and less to his philosophy (which is of course very important as well).--Gilisa (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recent thread at Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein#Religious categories has asked whether Ludwig Wittgenstein should appear in categories such as Category:Austrian Jews, Category:LGBT Jews, etc. As I understand it, although Wittgenstein was of Jewish descent, he was not Jewish by the Orthodox tradition, and was baptised and raised a Roman Catholic (his mother, and her mother, were Roman Catholics). I know that the issue of "Who is a Jew?" is a complex one, and can give rise to sometimes heated debate, so please could members of this Wikiproject give us some guidance on this? Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe he would be considered Jewish by any stream of Judaism. More traditional streams of Judaism would look at objective considerations such as matrilineal descent (or conversion certified by a rabbinical court). More liberal streams would pay more attention to personal beliefs and subjective identity. He had neither. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon article. It is currently just a stub, but I plan on expanding it in the future. The sources I have used thus far have been English, however, one source that holds additional info about the people menioned within the letter appear in a Hebrew book. As I can't read Hebrew, I was wanting to know if anyone would be interested in translating a page from the book so I can add the material to the article. Please contact me on my talk page if you are interested. Please keep in mind I just recently requested the book via an interlibrary loan and so it may take a few weeks before it arrives.
I don't know, someone may already have it, which would greatly speed up the process. Here is the world cat webpage on the book. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of the conflation of the Jewish religion with Jewish ethnicity are once again being raised at Talk:Religious terrorism. Please drop by and speak your mind, whichever way you feel is correct. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article on Hebrew calligraphy? I found the Sofer article, but nothing on the more general subject of Hebrew calligraphy. It is my intention to add a Hebrew section to the main Calligraphy article, and later will create a new article for Hebrew calligraphy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there a is real calligraphy tradition in Judaism separate from the work of a Sofer STAM. JFW | T@lk 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [1], [2]Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's a relatively recent phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. This [[3]], because it is not a Torah scroll, is written in a different style of lettering than would have been used for scrolls.Also, for example, [4]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting too [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Hebrew Bible is a mess of "citation needed" tags and I am not (yet) enough of an expert to get the definitions straight. Can someone help? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has always been a fork of Tanakh and Old Testament. I'd prefer to merge & redirect it to Tanakh. JFW | T@lk 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those fact tags were placed by an IP 72.229.10.154 (talk). Check that user's contributions and talk page and you'll find links to another IP and a registered user who created Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, an article that was nominated for deletion (nomination subsequently withdrawn) and had many of its assertions challenged. In short, those tags look rather pointy and can probably all be deleted as common knowledge. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I deleted one of those tags, but now I see more uncited statements, like this one: The term does not imply naming, numbering or ordering of books, while both Tanakh and Old Testament do. Well, I've never heard that before, and personally I use Hebrew Bible as a neutral term synonomous with Tanakh. So it needs a citation, or else deletion. Can anyone help? StAnselm (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point remains that Hebrew Bible is a redundant article that was purely created as a fork to satisfy various POV pushers. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know about the origins of the article. But Hebrew Bible is certainly a notable term of art and there's every reason to have an article about such important terms. Meanwhile, I'm rather surprised that all 3 articles are so weak. In some ways Tanakh is the weakest because (from what I can tell) it lacks any discussion of literary, historical, social, legal, etc scholarship on the topic. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 10:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of the article a long time ago, I'm interested in knowing what "POV" I was trying to push... In any case, myself and others who have worked on it always seen it as being an extremely notable term of art, no more than that but also no less. I also agree that all three articles need a lot of work. Tanakh seems the best candidate for improvement.
- On a related topic, I'd love to get feedback and help on Parashah. Maybe it can eventually become a featured article. Dovi (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just joined this WikiProject! Can't promise I'll be doing major renovations, but every little bit helps, yeah? Is there a banner/infobox I can add to my Member page, attesting to the fact that I'm a member of this Wikiproject (as other Wikiprojects have)? —Micahbrwn (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or should all antisemitism-related articles remain WP:JEW, WP:JH, both, neither, or other? -- Avi (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Avi: It's a bad idea because ever since the creation of this main Judaism Wikiproject almost all the spin-offs from it over the years have never succeeded, be they for Reform Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Secular Jewish Culture, Hebrew Language, all have tried to have their own WikiProjects and none have made it and have had to be shut down. The Jewish History one barely limps along. While one or two editors may be enthusiastic in the beginning of a new project, they never stick around long enough and it's not enough to sustain spin-off WikiProjects. So I would advise against it, because there is simply not the constant manpower needed to run such a project. This project has worked well as "the big tent" and "central address" that covers all topics relating to Jews and Judaism and it should not be difused with well-meaning ideas that will not fly in the end. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are articles, such as the one discussed above [[6]], that have the antisemitism template. In many cases, changing to the ProjectJudaism template would be confusing....and in this case (because the subject of the article seems to be an antisemite with a Hebrew name) the whole point would be distorted to the point of making it laughable. If the ProjectAntisemitism were ended how we deal with that sort of problem? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The template is independent of the WikiProject, Malcom. The question is do we have a separate project focusing on antisemitism, or do we continue to monitor it under the ægis of WP:JEW. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the reason for the failure of the other projects may be the lack of a sufficient project template, providing assessments and the like. If the members of this project wanted the Judaism project banner to function like the Australia banner on Talk:Sydney for instance for the Orthodox and Reform Projects I could probably do it. While I acknowledge that there are a lot of articles related to Antisemtism in the Category:Antisemitism, I'm less than convinced that the Antisemitism is necessarily a major point within those articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination already deals with all articles relating antisemtism, as well as the main topic itself, and it would to my eyes seem the more logical place to suggest this. A joint work group of the two projects, or perhaps a "religious discrimination" task force/work group of Discrimination, would certainly be at least worthy of consideration. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will remind editors that it's been mentioned repeatedly in this space that this project specifically does not deal with antisemitism related issues and that this was agreed to when the project originated. Many editors have brought antisemitism issues here to be told that they're in the wrong place. Given that, I think it might be a good idea to create a "right place" to hold those discussions. I also point out that, contrary to what Malcolm Schosha seems to be saying above, there currently is no Antisemitism project. There's only a category. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree, Steven. The only exception I would make would be antisemitism on purely theological grounds, such as Nahmanides' disputations with Pablo Christiani. But as I'm sure you'll agree most antisemitism is either unrelated to Jewish theology or employs deliberate and easily-disproven misinterpretation. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly folks, is there such a burning need for such a project? And to JFW: The Judaism WikiProject has not been purely a "theological" one because over the years it has had all sorts of postings very loosely connected to Judaism without anything being said against that. If there are some serious issues, they can easily be discussed here if need be, we have not been so strict in excluding discussion of the topic, or it can be taken to the Jewish History WikiProject as well, but at this time it seems that an AntiSemitism WikiProject will die the death that other such spin-off projects have simply because of lack of long-term manpower devoted to keep it going. But by all means, if some people want to create it, they can try and see where it goes. By the way, what will be it's purview? Will it over-lap with the Israel WikiProject where anti-Israel discussions often come up? Or what if the religious or historical aspects of persecution of Jews comes up, will an editor seeking help, guidance or information have to post in three or four places to get noticed and who would have the "final say" as it were? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JH sounds like a perfect forum for antisemitism issues. It is mainly a historical and cultural phenomenon, not a religious one.
- IZAK, when we started this WikiProject we were pretty clear it was going to be about religious observances rather than cultural, political, ethnic and social phenomena. We even had a project for "Jewish Culture" (now defunct I believe). If I had my way, I would restrict the aegis of this WikiProject to its founding principles. We decided to stay clear of the Israel-Palestinian issue, and for similar reasons I have always tried to nip antisemitism-related discussions in the bud. They are distractions. JFW | T@lk 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If ProjectAntisemitism does not now exist, what specific objections are there to creating it? I do not understand the basis for the objections. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Malcolm, I don't think that even those who are expressing skepticism here are explicitly opposed to creation of such a project. I believe, if I understand them correctly, that they are simply doubtful about the ultimate usefulness, longevity and success it is likely to enjoy.
- Here are my concerns. From time to time in the course of my involvement in Wikipedia, I have come across editors who take a particular interest in articles like Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Antisemitic canard, Blood libel against the Jews, Kevin B. MacDonald and other similar articles. And not in a good way. I have occasionally found myself reverting them only to find that, unlike garden variety vandals, they don't just do their dirty work and disappear. Instead they initiate lengthy, tendentious talk page discussions that an uninvolved editor or administrator might see as trollish, but just as easily might see as an honest defense of a minority view. Sometimes I feel as though I'm alone in fighting for an honest article. Where do I go? I've been told explicitly (and rightly) that this Project talk page is not the place for such discussions. WP:WikiProject Jewish history is near-moribund. Discussions I try to initiate there frequently die without response. Going to WP:ANI usually elicits one of two responses, either "That's an ordinary content dispute, take it somewhere else," or "Oh my goodness, what an egregious case of antisemitic trolling. I can't believe he's been getting away with it this long. Why didn't anyone stop him sooner? I'll block him immediately." I honestly cannot predict which it's going to be. It seems to depend entirely on the administrator fielding the complaint.
- On the other hand (and there's always another hand) having a project that exists largely to patrol antisemitism-related articles for edits from an unwelcome point of view (and that is, honestly, my main reason for wanting it) sounds like it might make the project look a little bit like a cabal.
- I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to all this, but I hope I've identified some of the issues at hand. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As an outsider... seeing the question, then reading the above comments, I think three things:
- subject antisemitism is not properly a religious topic, so I can understand the desire to not have it be a part of WikiProject Judaism,
- the subject has been inserted into Jewish history, as it has been the unhappy 'cause' for much modern history, yet I wonder about it being "Jewish history",
- because after all it is at the interface between Judaism and the antisemitic extra-Judaic elements that we have the subject 'antisemitism' and its consequences.
- So... I can find it reasonable to not want either the emphasis on the subject or the watchfulness, centered in either WP:JUDAISM or WP:JH. I can understand the desire to separate the subject from these two projects.
- Even if a justifiable new project, I have great trepidation at the thought. I worry about any project whose center, whose 'cause', is the subject antisemitism. It will be extremely difficult to form and maintain a reasonable, viable project focusing on such a corrosive subject.
- What's my problem? Why'd I venture to comment? Wandering about (watchlist) I saw a reference to the question, and immediately thought "Aieee, not WP:JDL! Please noooo!" How would you prevent the almost forgone radicalization that will result? My fear - yet another project whose mission will doom it. But then, I'm a pessimist. Shenme (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- functional-wise (i.e. "It's a bad idea because ever since the creation of this main Judaism Wikiproject almost all the spin-offs from it over the years have never succeeded") i can't say.
- topic wise, yes. if i can crib from The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism :
- Anti-Judaism, or the controversial term coined in the 1870s by Wilhelm Marr, Antisemitism, is one of the most complex and, at times, perplexing forms of hatred. It spans history, infecting different societies, religious and philosophical movements, and even civilizations. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some contend that Antisemitism illustrates the limitations of the Enlightenment and modernity itself. Manifestations of Antisemitism emerge in numerous ideological based narratives and the constructed identities of belonging and otherness such as race and ethnicity, nationalisms, and anti-nationalisms. In the contemporary context of globalised relations it appears that Antisemitism has taken on new complex and changing forms that need to be decoded, mapped and critiqued.
- The subject matter of Antisemitism, like prejudice more generally, has a long and impressive intellectual and research pedigree. It remains a topic of ongoing political importance and scholarly engagement. [7]
- Gzuckier (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created a template for Passover just in time for Passover. Check it out and please revise it or suggest revisions. Remember (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Good work. You might add Chol HaMoed but not the Four Sons HG | Talk 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this template, Beitzah links to Egg (food), a general article on the culinary use of the ovum of certain birds, which makes no mention of passover. Should it be there? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of us are having an edit dispute concerning the transliteration of of Template:Hebrew, and would appreciate a third opinion, preferably from someone who knows Hebrew. Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi StAnselm: The use of the word "Jehovah" in articles should be avoided because Judaism forbids taking this name in vain and it is therefore offensive to many learned Jews to use it. The name Jehovah or Template:Hebrew is used ONLY in Jewish prayers and Torah study but is never pronounced phonetically, and instead the Hebrew word "Adonai" is ALWAYS used in Judaism and by Jews in prayer and study. Thus, it is wholy correct and justified that this name of God holy to Judaism and Jews should not be bandied about and that when it is found, the english word "God" should be used instead, with a "dab" to Names of God in Judaism like so: [[Names of God in Judaism|God]]. Therefore when some Judaic editors come across a denigration of God's name on Wikipedia, they change it accordingly to God. Thanks for asking, IZAK (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a paragraph from the introduction of the article:
Following long-standing tradition, in modern Jewish culture the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced, instead the above vocalization indicates to the reverent Jewish reader that the term Adonai is to be used. In places where the preceding or following word already is Adonai, the alternative term vocalized for the Tetragrammaton is differently indicated by the vocalization markings, indicating that the reading Elohim is to be used. Details of these vocalization markings differ between the various extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible.
Is this correct? I am not frum, and may not understand tradition correctly. But it is my understanding that if the text is to be read Elohim, then Elohim is written; and if Y-H-V-H is written there would be a silent space in the reading, or it would be replaced with Adonai. It is also my understanding that vowel marks are not used for Y-H-V-H in Torah scrolls.
This article should be read through by someone knowledgeable, and if necessary corrected, to make sure (at minimum) it does not represent Judaism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See eg Deuteronomy 3:24, Deuteronomy 9:26 (second instance), Judges 16:28 (second instance), Genesis 15:2 for examples where the Tetragrammaton is written with a vocalisation indicating that Elohim (rather than Adonai) should be read.
- In each case, this avoids reading "Adonai Adonai" ("Lord Lord"). Jheald (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, looking in my Stone Edition Chumash, I see that Bereishit (genesis) 15.2 haShem has vowel marks. But I also see that the following use of haShem does not. The article gives the incorrect impression that Y-H-V-H always has vowel marks, when in fact it is extremely rare.
- In fact, at the top of the article's introduction, there is this statement:
This article is about reading of the name of God in Hebrew scripture. For other renderings of the name, see Tetragrammaton. For the deity of monotheistic religions, see God. For other uses of Jehovah, see Jehovah (disambiguation). See also: Yahweh
- The subject is "Hebrew scripture", but discussed in a way that is (according to my understanding) unacceptable to Jews.
- I am going to copy this to the article's talk page so that it can be discussed there also. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "extremely rare" is not correct. Including vowel marks when writing the Tetragrammaton might be discouraged in some (comparatively recent) traditions; but on the other hand, the early Masoretic texts include the vowel points; as did the 1525 Rabbinical Bible; as does eg the JPS Tanakh online; as do many Siddurim. ArtScroll has a tendency to steer towards the most conservative and restrictive course. But not everyone's a Hassid... :-) Jheald (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might be in need of it {{User:Elipongo/Userboxes/Pesach}} will yield:
|
WikiProject Judaism is celebrating Pesach and will not be back online until the evening of Monday April 212008
|
Of course your own user name will be in the template when used on your own page. Chag Sameach! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Baha'i trying to actually delete Baha'i POV from the Davidic line article. To Baha'is the subject is treated as symbolic. There is a trivial breakaway sect, however, that takes the subject literally, and its got an editor that insists that that literal view be given a place. I've cited WP:UNDUE, WP:V and WP:RS all to no avail. I get reverted at every turn.
I'm a hard core exclusionist, especially on religion pages. I've deleted Baha'i POV before. To me it's a matter of intellectual honesty and inter-religious respect. WP:NOT#SOAP
Comments and editorial assistance there are invited. Grazie, MARussellPESE (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question has come up concerning the Bundist leader Szmul Zygielbojm and whether his religion should be shown in the infobox. Please comment at Talk:Szmul Zygielbojm#Religion. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Avi wants to enforce a new Manuel of style policy, see and talk: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Religious Honorific prefixes - Rabbi and doesn't even wait [8] [9] for a consensus outcome to see if his argument gets excepted which was handily refuted and turned down here Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Honorifics and in the archives of that talk page, by a few users, he has already gone on a deleting spree to take of the word rabbi from Jewish leaders who have no sources provided that they were crowned with the orthodox halachic procedure of Semichah to be called with this honorific.
Since there is definitely many levels of the word; there is the chief rabbi the grand rabbi the halchic decider posek and so forth, Avi is by the opinion that if the rabbi is only because he is some sort of a teacher and spiritual leader or more precisely only a activist the word rabbi must be deleted from its lead because in his mind its the same as Mr.
Since there is some truth to this claim; since many in the outer world are calling every Jew with a long beard a rabbi, i am by the opinion that we should follow the sources and the references if all of them do indeed call the subject rabbi as the honorific we can let the claim rabbi in the honorific, after all we at wikipedia do not write anything original and new, we simply regurgitate and organize all the facts out there, i beg some valued Jewish users to share their knowledge on this after all Avi claims to be a Rabbi and i am far from a rabbi to battle his so high acclaimed authority here. please anybody write something about the issue to enlighten us how to do thanks.--YY (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The manual of style as it exists now at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes is very clear about this. If consensus is that changes should be made, the entry on the manual's talk page is the proper place for it to be discussed. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but i don't see one word of the term Rabbi discussed if it would be there this discussion Avi's request on that page's talk see his detailed requestwould have obviously been repetitive, so evidently Avi wants to broaden some other policy to also include Jewish honorifics, - as Avi puts it very bluntly his desire is to restrict the word Rabbi just like the word Mother of Mother Theresa! the question is should we? i don't. whats your thoughts?--YY (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not have to spell out every honorific, YY; it discusses honorifics as a general category. As an aside, Shafran is referred to as a Rabbi in the article text, but not in the initial lede sentence, as per current MoS. -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense tells me that honorifics are decided not be some user in wikipedia who may have his biases but by sources and references, don't tell me that we cannot dissect through other media how to call rabbis, i beleave it is problematic to follow blindly their honorifics bestowed on people but if all of them use the rabbi as an honorific why not follow suit?!--YY (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Honorifics are generally not used in the lede. See Martin Luther King, Jr. for an example (note that he's not The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for your opinion, even Avi does not agree the word rabbi is the same as Reverend he explicitly excepts taht most as reb moshe fienstin also he agrees on satmar rabbi rabbis should indeed have the lede the word rabbi, his only beef is with a minor group of rabbis who are not grand rabbis not halachic deciders and not leaders of congregations--YY (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<-)I do? Where did I say that? Just as you have misrepresented my actions in your opening statement, you have misrepresented my actions above as well. I'm curious to see which of my edits supports your statement above. One example doth not "most" make. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have given sources, please stop jumping from the roof tops, with personal accusations, that i lie, it sounds very ridicules, lets stay on the subject. U agree [10] that if the rabbi is world renowned as a rabbi, than we can and should use the rabbi as an honorific. So is Martin Luther king world renowned enough? i think so! Should we put the honorific Reverend to him? I don't think so. Because Reverend isn't the same as Rabbi.--YY (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what about a rabbi such as Eric Yoffie? Should Rabbi not be included in the leader then? I'm a bit confused by all of this... A Sniper (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that is precisely the question, i would say that If half of the references do not address him with the Honorific Rabbi we should indeed delete it from the lede. This is indeed a can of warms opened, but the problem is we have to deal with this sooner or later, since Avi wont relent he has deleted the word Rabbi from many articles and this goes back a very long time. If we do not formalize any criteria or standard here when to use this word Rabbi in the lede and when not, he will claim that there is no real consensus against his deletions--YY (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, we already have a guideline on this, it is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. -- Avi (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AS we answered u already we dont have any guidance on the word Rabbi. If there is a answer please would u be so kind and copy and paste it here. thanks--YY (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need guidance about every single term; we have guidance on the class of honorifics. -- Avi (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Finely u agree there is no guidence here, so please enlighten us further: is it common sense to have the rabbi honorific on rabbi Eric or on Martin luther if he were a rabbi?--YY (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- YY, Rabbi and Reverend are the same, and as a general rule they don't belong in the lede. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem to except your opinion that it is the same, meanwhile no Reverend's biography has the word Reverend in the lead and all the biographies of the rabbis do indeed have the word rabbi in the lead so your opinion isn't for some reason excepted here. the numbers of wikipedia users who have rejected your statement that the term rabbi is the same as Reverend is troubling, can u explain that?--YY (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) From the encyclopedia's point of view, both Reverend and Rabbi are religious honorifics. It's merely your opinion that they're different. (2) How do you know that no reverend's bio has the honorific and every rabbi's bio has it? Have you read them all? (3) Maybe the editors who work on reverends' bios are more familiar with the MoS than the editors who work on rabbis' bios. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- (1) From an encyclopedic point of view both rabbi and rev are united that they derive from the word reveared and so fourth buth in the rabbi article u will find different criteria than the reverened article. so its not the same think because they r also used as honorifics. fact is a rabbi is not only honorific its also a status which the masses use all the time when talking about them. so my opinion never was expressed here (acutely it is that rabbis should not be the same as revrendes but it does not play any factor in this discussion) is not at all stated here i only qoute from the relevant encyclopedia articles. (2) how do i know? because if u r long enough active in the wikipedia u should know that there is a search engine to instantly require that knowledge. and for rev. (3) maybe yes or maybe not intresting that milions of peaple r so dismissed by u as ignoramuses to how a encyclopedia is written.... and not only the english all tghe 374 languages write like this but u have no problem dismising them WOW!!!--YY (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me only a few minutes to find counter-examples to your assertion concerning the bios of rabbis and reverends. The Reverend Grady Nutt, Rev. Dr. Brian Connor, Benjamin Yudin is an American Rabbi, and Milton H. Polin, an Orthodox rabbi who served in Brooklyn. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the effort in bringing 2 new unprofessional articles about 2 rev's which the lead rev wasn't yet deleted. and 2 rabbi articles which the term rabbi isn't yet added in the lead. does this proof exactly what? do u really want to waste our time and link to all those articles of rabbis and reverends which clearly do not lede in the word rev and do clearly lead into the name with a rabbi title if its a rabbi? i don't think so. listen we all heared already once that all those users are mistaken and u are the only smart one i appreciate that guts and i do not except that they are simply wrong there must be a better answer--YY (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't yet any "solid" guidelines specifically on the subject of naming articles about rabbis, I'm afraid. The are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy)#Judaism (which leads to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. Basically, so far as I can tell, it comes down to either the name the subject is best known by and/or whether the title in and of itself conveys some sort of significant meaning that would be absent were it not to be included. All heads of the Roman Catholic Church have their article titles start with "Pope" because in that case the word definitely has a very clear, readily understood, and significant meaning. If there are any approximately similar titled figures in Judaism (I don't know myself, sorry), then certainly using the title there would be indicated. Also, clearly, in cases of disambiguation, titling the article David Messas (rabbi) would make sense if there were another person with the same name, but that would only be necessarily in disambig cases.
- This is not to say that the article can't itself include the title in the bolded name of the subject. We already have several pages on religious figures which include the subject's title in the bolded name starting the page, but not necessarily in the title of the article. I hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are one or two things that I think are worth mentioning that haven't been yet.
- First, the word "Reverend" is not a noun. Therefore, while it is grammatically correct to say "The Reverend Robert Smith is an American Methodist Minister", it is always incorrect to say "Robert Smith is an American reverend." This is one important way in which "Rabbi" and "Reverend" do not directly compare. (See Reverend for a fuller discussion.)
- Second, the two articles linked by Malik Shabazz above do not use the word "Rabbi" as an honorific. The phrases "Benjamin Yudin is an American Rabbi" and "Milton H. Polin, an Orthodox rabbi who served in Brooklyn" have no relevance to the original question posed and clearly are not deprecated by the section of the Manual of Style linked above. The only use of the word "Rabbi" that could possibly be construed as relevant to that guideline is its use as an honorific title, for example, "Rabbi Benjamin Yudin" or "Rabbi Milton H. Polin"
- By my reading of the guideline, it also has nothing to say about the use of "Rabbi" as an honorific title. By the guideline's own description, it is meant to settle controversies surrounding "nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and popes." (The guideline was edited during the pendency of this discussion and I reverted as I thought that was manifestly unfair.)
- The guideline is not meant to, and does not give any guidance in determining who is and who is not a rabbi. This is what seems to me to be the center of this dispute. (My own view on this is that we should follow the lead of secondary sources.)
- The Martin Luther King article seems to set an example that religious
titles styles such as "Reverend" and "Rabbi" should not be included in the bolded section of the first sentence of the article containing the article subject's name. Similarly, the subject of that article is referred to throughout the article as "King" not "Dr. King" or "Rev. King". Naturally, however, the article does not shy away from mentioning that King was a Baptist minister.
- To sum up, my view on the best way of handling the two controversies put forward here is:
- Who is a rabbi? - Rely on secondary sources.
- When do we use the style rabbi in a person's name? - Avoid it as much as possible.
- --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(<-)Thank you for your detailed and careful response, Steven. However, I do believe that there is an analogy to the term Father as described in the final paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. What are your thoughts about that? -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That paragraph refers to special cases, certain individuals, such as Father Damien, Father Divine, and Mother Teresa who are popularly known by their honorifics instead of their forenames. (I suppose we could add Sister Mary Elephant to this list, but I see no point in deliberately antagonizing the folks at WP:CATHOLIC.) The paragraph approves of using the honorifics in the article titles in these special cases. If there are rabbis who fit this description, my interpretation is that this would apply equally to them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The implication being that for people not commonly known by the honorific, the honorific does not belong in the title/opening sentence. Do you agree? -- Avi (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yes we all agree! now what do u define commonly known? i assume u don't count wikipedie consensus into this equation, because u revert them all [4 users the last 2 days] single-handily, so why not rely on secondary sources to establish common knowledge? lets see on every rabbi if the references and sources bestow on him that honorific we cannot overrule them and should not. the subject at hand Avi Shafran is referred to by all commonly known sources as a rabbi why do u want to delete it?--YY (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that someone like "Reb Moshe" was universally referred to as Reb Moshe. The Satmar Rov was known throughout the world by that appellation. Avi Shafran, however, is not referred to by everyone as "Reb Avi" or similar. He, like Yitzchok Adlerstein is someone who is a Rabbi, not someone whose name has become permanently grafted to the term. Yisroel Dovid Weiss is even more tenuous, as we have no mention at all of the proper use of term, as opposed to Adlerstein, which at least says that he received semicha and from where he received it. What is your, and anyone elses, opinion, and why? -- Avi (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok so who decides this? why do u think that your decision has more power than 4 other users we said that we refer to him as rabbi wies and u r the only one saying we r wrong why do u put yourself above our community?!--YY (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We all do; I have brought apropos policy/guideline and explained why I thought case precedent was applicable or not. What are your arguments/opinions based on? -- Avi (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- on this score it would help if someone could make this more explicit in the MOS, also should Grand Rabbi's, (Chief Rabbi's) be given their title, as are roughly analogously, Cardinals, per MOS?--Bsnowball (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think so, if we can show that "Grand Rabbi" is consistently used. I mean, they are truly referred to as the "Satmar Rov" and the "Satmar Rebbe", not "Grand Rabbi", but I would argue that that usage is roughly analogous to "Mother Theresa" since the most common vernacular reference includes the "Rabbanus" so both of them should have the titles in the lede, in my opinion an d understanding of the applicable policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
