|
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 [1] [2] 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 [3] 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]
- I am out of my depth here, but re assertion that "the word "Reverend" is not a noun", this is apparently contradicted by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, which says that the word can be used as an adjective or (with "the") as a noun. - http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/R0205900.html . (Unless the assertion here is meant to be understood as "the word "Reverend" is not a noun in some particular case under discussion here") -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:21, 29 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]
Hi: There has never been a hard-and-fast-rule on Wikipedia about how to exactly ascertain, prove or validate if anyone is truly a 100% "rabbi" in the classical Halachic sense of the word. For example, not every rosh yeshiva has formal semicha ("[rabbinic] ordination"), see Not all present-day rabbis have semicha, and not every Jew who has received a semicha ever serves as a rabbi, so that if an individual is commonly referred to, reported by the media as one, and even has a following who considers him as such, then there is no "law" in Judaism or in the world that can remove or repress that individual's claim to be called a "Rabbi" (regardless if he is one with semicha or not, and there are so many grades of semicha that not everyone accepts everyone else's in any case) -- indeed, it is common practice that out of common courtesy, many Haredi and Hasidic men are called or addressed as "rabbi" (even if they turn around and say, "oh, I am not a [real] rabbi") and they hold no rabbinic position and have never served as rabbis. As for the question if the title "Rabbi" should be included as the first word in the biography of a subject, there has never been one consistent policy on this and it's doubtful if there ever will be because there are just too many individuals and variables at work. For example, some of the greatest sages of the Talmud did not have the title "rabbi" and many great sages over the millenia were never formal "rabbis" but were philosophers or merchants and traders and never called themselves "rabbi" anything. The situation in modern times is even more confusing and it is safe to say that the title "rabbi" has become essentially meaningless unless one knows the exact people involved. Thus, this entire discussion is moot and almost pointless. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok its safe to sum it up that we had 5 users commenting and except of avi nobody sees any written rule of Manuel of style who is a rabbi and who not even Avi trys to argue that we have to go by common knowledge i openly challenge Avi that the article in question is indeed a rabbi and therefore i beleave that the word rabbi indeed comes before the word Avi Shafran. i beleave he was and is against consensus to constantly delete it. i hope i am not mistaken reading the words of Izzak, and more explicitly Steven who says openly that the link from Avi does not ion any way shape or form say something about Avi shafran and all the other users. thanks--YY (talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have completely mis-read the discussion here. I wrote that we shouldn't use the honorific "Rabbi" before a person's name in the lede of an article. Steven wrote that we should "Avoid it as much as possible". IZAK wrote that "there has never been one consistent policy". In other words, nobody supported your position that articles about rabbis should always start with the word "Rabbi". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also didn't say that all the articles must start with the word Rabbi, all i am saying is that Avis analogy to some Manuel of style is non existent and all the other readers who have cared to comment say that as well, Avi is trying to create here a new policy which isn't wasn't and as it seems will not be excepted by the community. If we should use the word Rabbi before the name? I agree that in some cases i would not do it, but always we should follow the secondary sources, which in this case all refer to him as Rabbi before the name so it should be like this in wikipedia as well in my opinion.--YY (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of unnecessarily lengthening this discussion, I'll try to clarify my remarks. First, I believe that the best practice is not to use the honorific "Rabbi" in the lead or in the text of any article. Second, if we say "Avi Shafran is a rabbi," that should be supported by secondary sources. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with u, but let me also agree with your second statement witch is not repeated bu u here: that if all the secondary sources claim and call him a Rabbi, we can indeed call him a rabbi, we have no Manuel of style as of yet whom to call and whom to not call the word Rabbi before the name--YY (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I reread Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes and I see that it prescribes rules for styles and honorifics (1) derived from noble title, (2) derived from political activities, (3) indicating royalty or a pope, and (4) the specific titles "Sir" and "Dame". However, the title "Rabbi" doesn't seem to meet any of these criteria. It is not derived from noble title or political activities, does not indicate royalty or a pope, and is neither "Sir" nor "Dame". Accordingly, I don't believe the manual of style currently says anything at all about the title "Rabbi", one way or the other. We can add a new rule ourselves if we want to have a rule on the subject, but I don't see that any rule currently exists. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A famous aphorism by philosopher His Profundity Chico Marx comes to mind: Why a Duck? When someone says "Duck", don't just duck, ask "Why a Duck?" So let me ask, "Why a
fence rule?" Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the example about Father Dougherty and Mother Theresa at the end of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes. Father and Mother are analagous to rabbi in this sense. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that Father and Mother are in any way analagous to rabbi in this sense and I don't think you're correctly reading the guideline. The guideline refers to "certain historic persons" who were commonly known by their honorifics instead of their forenames. I can't see how this applies to any of the rabbis (or non-rabbis, depending on one's point of view) under discussion here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Judah and Special:WhatLinksHere/Tamar and help fix links to disambiguation pages? I've tried, but don't know enough about the characters involved to do any more. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:P4k is removing the text about Christianity that is similar to the text we have at Messianic Judaism. I would request that more eyes be placed on the article. -- Avi (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Japanese movement therapy with the sentence - also Sotai A servant of Solomon (Ezra 2:55) whose descendants returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel. Could someone from this Project please write an article about him, I'm not qualified to because I'm a Christian gentile. Also I'm putting the WP:Judaism Banner on Category:Tanakh stubs. The only one so far I've had to change was Mount of Temptation because its about Jesus. Kathleen.wright5 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above now has its own article under Sotai (Bible). Kathleen.wright5 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced Sotai needs his own article unless there is much to say about him. You are fully within your right to write an article about Bible personalities; the only qualification you need is being a Wikipedian! JFW | T@lk 10:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there are 2 articles about the same subject, The Song of Moses is Stub class and Song of Moses is Start class. I think a Merge is in order here. Kathleen.wright5 23:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles relation to Judaism and Christianity is being discussed on the talk page again. Please join and speak your conscience, whatever it may be. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a merger of these two duplicate pages at Talk:Tophet#Proposed_merger_of_Tophet_and_Topheth. I don't expect this to be a controversial merge (they are two similar articles on the same subject at two variant spellings), however, I would appreciate any other opinions on the proposed merge from anyone who wants to give them. Please comment at the given link above, not here.— Gavia immer (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update:In the absence of objections, I've gone ahead and performed the merger. Although I did some copyediting as part of the merge, the resulting article could still use attention. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether the members of this group wished to adjust the Judaism banner to include separate assessments for either the extant, if inactive, descendant projects, or for any other descendant projects on specific denominations at your discretion. I could arrange such changes myself. My reason for asking is that I have recently, for the purposes of reducing banner clutter on the most cluttered talk pages, created a new banner for the Bible Project at User:John Carter/Bible, which can be seen in use at User talk:John Carter/Bible. It is I hope understood that not only those other related projects which are directly relevant to the article in question will necessarily be activated in each article, generally determined by categorization. In short, it should, in general, be smaller. But if the members of this project did wish to create denominational or other subprojects, please let me know so that I could try to place those parameters in the Bible banner as well. I could also adjust your existing banner and assessment setup to include those groups under your own banner as well, if you so requested it. Please let me know. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was clearly written by someone who is such a devoted follower of Chabad messianism that they can't even see straight. I've hacked away at it a bit, but it is in serious need of help...especially from anyone with a background in Qabala, or who has access to the Zohar and the writings of Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin and Philo... Tomertalk 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedic perhaps. NPOV no. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two brand new categories are available and waiting to be populated with articles:
I have created hundreds of new categories, but I've never previously made a point of making an announcement. However, it struck me as hugely ironic and quite astonishing that there were no categories for books about the "people of the book" (other than Holocaust books). So I hope, fellow editors, that you will make good use of these! Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temple of Israel (Wilmington, North Carolina) - the first synagogue in North Carolina and one of the first Reform synagogues in the American South.
Category:Synagogues in North Carolina is ready for more articles if someone is interested. APK yada yada 08:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noteworthy discussion regarding Category:Jews and Judaism by country at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 16#Category:Jews and Judaism by country. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
