|
IPA fot Zeev Suraski
Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14
There's an editor who is inserting original research into this article, and using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm limited to a 1RR, so I'd appreciate it if someone could drop by and help. Here's the diff of his changes: [1]. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You ask us to step in and revert for you, but you haven't even bothered to ask the user to stop, or try to discuss things out with him? There's a short blurb on the talk page, but it's pretty bitey. This is a new user, they aren't necessarily aware of our norms and rules. Why don't you try talking things out instead of coming here to raise a lynch mob? L'Aquatique[parlez] 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <blink> Well, that was helpful. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly where you expecting to get? L'Aquatique[parlez] 21:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I don't know. Tim was willing to help. Despite the issues we've had, he was willing to deal with a content issue as a content issue without making it personal. You might want to consider that. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could have offered you thoughts on the request without the slap at the end. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I could have, but this is a.) one of my pet peeves and b.) an ongoing problem. In the past I have been quite civil but I am getting quite tired of Lisa running to this board to raise lynch mobs against whomever is her antagonist of the week. That's not what this is supposed to be. Consider it a trout slap if you so desire. L'Aquatique[parlez] 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't looking for a lynch mob. I had a migraine, and I was concerned that I might get too testy with this guy. I came here asking for help. I didn't realize that I'd knock that big chip off of your shoulder. My bad. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Aquatique, some very responsible editors have requested such help. I know existentially that there is nothing inherently annoying about such requests because they not bother me at all. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked for advice, and I gave it to you. I'm sorry if it wasn't what you wanted. I notice, however, that after this you still have not contacted the user in question... L'Aquatique[parlez] 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW -- I just checked the user's contribs, and there are a number of pages involved in similar edits. I posted a note on his talk page, and I'll try to talk to him about some of the other pages involved when he replies. Right now I've just given him a welcome with a couple of pointers. I haven't looked at the other pages in detail yet. I don't know if they've been reverted. Seems like good faith, but newbie, edits with OR and a specific interest in the Divine Name.Tim (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I've added a link to the original research policy- it's good to give newbies additional official reading- it tends to convince them that this really is a rule, not just what this one guy on my talk page is b.s-ing about!
 L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone -- the user in question, Alleichem, is continuing to make the same edits over and over again in this and other articles, creating UNDUE weight for some group called the Assemblies of Yahweh. Last time I've looked, there are at least five or six people (Christians, Jews, others) routinely reverting him across an assortment of pages, and Lisaliel and I have been unsuccessful in talking to him on his talk page. This isn't doing him any good, nor the editors trying to maintain the pages. Does anyone have any suggestions for us? SkyWriter (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, the user in question has been confirmed to be a sock of a previously blocked user. The edits from all of the socks have left a good bit of debris in a number of articles. We need to clean out the problems remaining in the articles edited by the following socks:
It's important that we can create a stable version of each article so that additional socks can be easily reverted to a known stable form. Yahweh was one of the affected articles, and there are several others. Can we have some help eyeballing the articles and catching anything fringe that needs to be set aside? Thanks.
Also, kudos to Lisa for being the first to catch the newest sock. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken the liberty of adding the userlinks template to the names on the list. Hope you don't mind my refactoring your post in this way, Tim. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Todah Rabbah :-) SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kashrut is receiving a lot of attention, some of which not particularly positive. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user has proposed moving the Kabbalah article [2], which article is included in the Judaism template. Comments would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [[::User:QaBobAllah|QaBobAllah]] ([[::User talk:QaBobAllah|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/QaBobAllah|contribs]]) has moved the page knowing that he did not have a consensus for the move. I view this as disruptive and indefensible. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be done formally with WP:RM etc. I will undo the move. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's not just that. He's gone into every article that has a link to Kabbalah and changed the link to "Jewish Kabbalah". I've reverted some of them, but he was a very busy guy, apparently. Check out his history. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't realized the move would be a problem, since the article used to be general but was split unilaterally without consensus in February (see top of Talk:Kabbalah). I've now used the formal process at WP:RM, so since the redirects should work fine perhaps they should be left until the move discussion is over. Bob (QaBob) 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- QaBobAllah is confused about the facts of the split of the Kabbalah article. One of the editors did split it, but the consensus was against it and the change was reverted the same day. There was at one time a fair amount of non-Jewish material in the article, but that was changed slowly over time. The non-Jewish material was moved to separate articles, and I think that re-including them now would again lead to an article that attempts to synthesise traditions that have virtually nothing in common but the pronunciation of the name (even the accepted spellings differ).
- Unfortunately, the one thing QaBobAllah has shown no interest in is discussion with other editors. If he was willing to take the time to discuss, this ridiculous mess could have been avoided. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absolutely untrue that I have no interest in discussion. If you had not repeatedly removed my tag from the article, refusing to discuss yourself, I would have been happy to wait for the responses of other editors. Your position is quite clear and apparently inflexible. Bob (QaBob) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag because you gave no explanation on the article 's talk page to justify it. I asked you repeatedly to explain, but you did not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true, Malcolm. I had already created a section called "Proposed move", which outlined my reasons. I created a subsection under that called "Unbalanced" to directly address your request to explain. Bob (QaBob) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Proposed move"? How does that explain the "inaccurate or unbalanced" tag you put on the article? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading the words under the heading, including those under the subheading "Unbalanced". Clearly I was trying to explain. Rather than removing the tag (3 or 4 times), you could have asked on the talk page for me to clarify. Bob (QaBob) 15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to argue with you more about what should be simple and obvious. I hope that WikiProject Judaism members will comment on the Kabbalah article talk page concerning the move. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I! That's why I started the discussion and informed all interested projects, including the Christianity, Kabbalah and Occult projects. Bob (QaBob) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion needs to be conducted on Talk:Kabbalah, which is the nidus for this topic. If no consensus can be achieved, please drop a message on this page and consider a request for comments. At the moment, the move is contested. In my mind, Kabbalah is first and foremost a Jewish topic, with all other branches (some very far removed from the original roots) being secondary to it. It might be better if Kabbalah were to be regarded as the {{main}} article with subtopics fanning out as needed. This works very well in other large topics. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an RfC on the move [3]. Considering that there was no time allowed for editors to discuss the move, I do not understand why there is an RfC. But there is. That is why I have asked here for users to comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. But why an RFC and then a WP:RM? If there is no consensus for a move, there is little that an RFC is going to change. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A related article that really needs Jewish eyes is Practical Kabbalah. My Googling of this produced radically different kinds of results, and it seems as though the esoteric references are claiming the existence of something within Kabbalah (as Jewish thing) that doesn't really exist. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just discovered there has been a snowball vote at AfD to delete the longstanding article Christianity and Judaism and merge it into the article Judeo-Christian. This is completely crazy. Unfortunately the AfD wasn't flagged here and I missed it. (It's also not exactly the best time of year). So how does one go about getting a "snowball merge" reconsidered?
As the hatnote at Judeo-Christian makes clear, the two articles have been intended to have very different scopes:
- This article [Judeo-Christian] is about the word phrase. For the relationships between the two religions, see Christianity and Judaism.
According to WP:MOS, we use nouns to name our articles, not adjectives. So if we are going to have a survey article about the relationships between the two religions (which we certainly should, if we aspire to be any kind of decent encyclopedia), the proper title for such an article is Christianity and Judaism (just as we have articles Christianity and Islam and [Islam and Judaism]]). The Christianity and Judaism article may currently have problems, but the solution is not to merge it to some different inappropriate title.
The article Judeo-Christian has been intended to have a very different purpose, namely to trace the meaning of the word phrase Judeo-Christian, not relationships between the two religions.
This is quite an interesting topic, and in its own right worth an article -- not least because its (over?)use is controversial, with charges that it came to the fore as a particularly politically useful word, but one the unthinking overuse of which has been criticised (particularly from the Jewish side) as engendering a falsely consensual perception of Judaism, because Judaism is not mostly "singing from the same hymn-sheet" as Christianity, and through the last twenty centuries seldom has been.
he term was almost unknown, outside academic discussion of early transitional phases of Christianity, until the 1940s. But in the '40s and '50s it very much came to the fore, as a commonplace of American political discourse, as an inclusive politician's phrase for "American values", that a generation earlier would have been called the values of America as a Christian country. "Judeo-Christian" came to the fore to distinguish America from the racist perversion of Nazi Germany, and then the "godless Communism" of post-war Soviet Russia. But beyond the most superficial, there never was much religious content in the term. When Herberg (1955) comes to consider what was meant by the vogue term, after a few intentionally broad generalities "(the fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, the dignity of the individual human being, etc.)", he concludes that what it really signified was identification with the American Way of Life, politically "compounded almost equally of democracy and free enterprise", as the "common religion" of American society. In the United States the term became a commonplace, and then a homogenising term that some Jews emphasised their distinctiveness from. But its prominence as a term is/was a particularly American thing, something which became applied to American identity, and came out of the needs of American political discourse. Outside America, it is not a commonplace in at all the same way, and has rather little resonance.
The term substantially dropped out of political use in the '60s and '70s, as individuality rather than assimilative conformity came to the fore. But it reappeared in the '80s and '90s used by the Christian moral right, as a codeword for their values - often substantially at variance from those of Rabbinic Judaism, and traditional American Jewish politics.
The term "Judeo-Christian" therefore has an interesting story in its own right. Judeo-Christian is not an appropriate location for a general survey article on "Judaism and Christianity", and it shouldn't have the contents of that article dumped on top of it destroying its own focus.
The AfD went for a snowball merge. But the AfD was never flagged at Judeo-Christian, not even a merge-from tag. (It wasn't flagged here, either). And nobody familiar with the Judeo-Christian article seems even to have participated.
So, how does one overturn a "snowball merge", before it gets implemented? Jheald (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Jheald. To his comments I would add that I do not think the Judeo-Christian article says that the Christianity and Judaism article covers what is shared by Christianity and Judiams. It directs people to this article on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Now, I am not thrilled by that phrasing, but the important thing is that it maintains the distinction between Judaism and Christianity. Judeo-Christian is not, I believe, an objective account of various things shared by Christianity and Judaism. It is a point of view that claims a continuity if not plain identity between Christianity and Judaism. I agree that it is a notable view and one that merits an encyclopedia article. But it is not a term used by scholars who study Judaism and Christianity. When anyone - including scholars writing on other matters - use the term, it is evident that what they call "Judeo-Christian" is what Jews would simply call "Christian." In short, "Judeo-christian" expresses a particular ideology, worth an article. But historians who study the split between Judaism and Christianity are quite attentive to what caused a break between the two sects and how each religion developed in contrasting directions. If the problem with this article is that it reads too much like an essay, I propose that the solution is to revise it in a historical framework i.e. in the 1st century these were the things Pharisees and Christians may have debated; in the second century we have record of debates among Christianity that had implications for its relationship to Judaism; in the third century the two sects broke and effectively became two religions; by the eight century - after the second Nicean council and the completion of the Babylonian Talmud - the following (n...) emerged as contrasting characteristics of two religions that, for much of the history that followed, were in an antagonistic relationship. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further follow-ups to Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion (centralised discussion). Thanks. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me who gave this a B (rather than start) rating as part of your project? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk · contribs) did on 2 October. There have not been many edits the talkpgae. You could have figured this one out. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know he made the edit, but I thought there would be some process involving others before a WikiProject gave a rating. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of a single WikiProject where ratings are cross-verified. I suggest you change the rating if you think it does not reflect the quality of that article. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you folks aren't already doing so, you might want to check in on Neoconservatism from time to time. There seems to be an urge on the part of some editors to say that "Neoconservatism is a Jewish thing. Jewish! Jewish! Jewish!"
For all I know, some mention of this may be appropriate (I honestly don't know), but I think that we need to keep an eye on the article to maintain a healthy balance. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was a Reborn Christian thing! JFW | T@lk 20:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was a Republican thing. :-) --Bachrach44 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Joking aside, neocons outside the USA would not be republicans. In the UK they would side with the Tory party or possibly UKIP. The fact that some neocon figureheads are Jewish is tautological - many prominent Democrats are Jewish too. What does that demonstrate, other than that many American Jews engage in politics? JFW | T@lk 08:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neoconservatism is a Jewish thing? Don't tell the folks at my congregation... voting republican was one of the sins cast into the river at our tashlich serivce last week! ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congregation Beth Elohim, a WikiProject Judaism GA, is currently being assessed for FA status. Any comments, advice, suggestions, etc. welcome here. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm revisiting the article Shimon Schwab with the eventual intention of bringing this up to GA status. I have two main sources. Could anyone familiar with the subject have a peek and see if they have additional sources to supply that I could include? JFW | T@lk 11:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Ezra Pound has several posts "Was Ezra Pound Jewish? / Of Jewish background?", with the answer, "No, he wasn't." However, the template for WikiProject Judaism appears prominently at the top of that page. This is very confusing to say the least! Could this please be cleared up, and Talk:Ezra Pound be watched in the future to see that the article is/isn't included in WikiProject Judaism, as appropriate.
( --Wikipedia: What a country!) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the template is their because of the interest of WP:JEW in the article due to the anti-semitism. It does not mean that Pound was Jewish. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. :-) -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, please have a look at Sir Anthony de Rothschild, 1st Baronet and Anthony Rothschild. IMHO it's the same person, only with wrong death date at one of them. Can you verfiy it and then if necessary merge the articles? Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, editor Dzied Bulbash has removed the Wikipedia article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) from the category Feminism and Health three times. (Editor Dakinijones had placed the article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in the category of Feminism and Health on August 18, 2008.) Bulbash currently has placed this article about a series of paintings about women’s health in the Articles for Deletion page. Perhaps this information might be of interest because of the possibility that editor Dzied Bulbash may take action to remove further articles, such as articles related, either directly or indirectly, to Jewish issues, from Wikipedia. If anyone would like to share his or her thoughts on this matter of deletion of the article titled Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction), there is a discussion on the entry Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) on the Articles for Deletion Page. Thank you very much. Dr. Joseph Abraham Levi. Joseph Levi (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've going through a lot of the Jewish holiday related pages recently and finding a lot of link spam which I've been removing. While a lot of links are easy to label as self promotion and commercial advertising, some stuff is a little more borderline, and that's where I want some input from others before I move forward. (Before I continue, I just want to make clear that I'm not referring to the pages on the various Weekly Torah portions, I'm talking about things like holidays and other religious rituals). While removing blatant link spam I've also noticed that almost every page has a link to chabad.org, aish.com, and frequently two links to yeshiva.org. For the most part I've been leaving them as is since they have useful information, (with the occasional exception of removing one of the two yeshiva links per WP:EL), but I'm not sure if I really should be grandfathering them in like this. There are many sites out there with divrei torah, holiday instructions, etc. Truw, Aish and Chabad are two of the better ones, but is it really fair to only have links to those two and exclude all the other sites on the web? (We clearly can't include them all since wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of links). I'm afraid that including only links to two ostensibly Orthodox kiruv organizations is also leaving us open to charges of POV pushing in the EL section. What do people think? Should we leave the EL section of a holiday page open to any reputable organization that has relevant info? Should we leave only Aish and Chabad? Should we eliminate all of them unless they have a special relevance to that article? --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
