Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 2 April 2019

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To the school class putting up this project

some topics you might write about

• What was the fringed garmet that the torah instructs Israelites to put a fringe with a blue thread on.

• In medieval times, in many parts fo both the European and Muslim wolrds, Jews had styles to distinguish themselves form other gorups. sometimes, these styles were voluntary, sometimes required by the authorities. You will find th Ottoman empire very interesting. I believe that some Jewish museum web pages have pictures.

• Jewish brides in the Mediterranean often wore very elaborate outfits - check out the gold embriodery and jewelery of Moroccan Jewsih brides

• Chassidim developed special dress styles derived from the dress of te Polish upper class in the era when Chassidism was developing. These styles continue to be worn ad markers of ethnic identity.

Good luck and have fun doing the researchHistoricist (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image

To fellow-editors User:Newmila and User:תנא קמא, and others who may have taken an interest in the same, rather than engage in an edit war, why don't we simply submit here a Misplaced Pages:RfC on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this image showing a woman donning Tefillin, and which are traditionally worn only by men. In this way, we can build a consensus.Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The article says some women do wear Tefillin, so the image is illustrative. Jonathunder (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The article speaks about the veiling of Jewish women, but not about them wearing Tefillin (phylacteries). Here, some editors obviously think that the image may be misleading to our readership, as it is an anomaly, if you will, not practised by the vast majority of observant Jews. Some women from the Reform Movement will, however, wear them, but they do not make-up the vast majority, who frown upon the practice. We are taught in the Talmud that Michal, the daughter of King Shaul, was an exception, and would wear them. I think that a RfC will solve this dispute.Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does include a sentence about women using tefillin and cites a page from My Jewish Learning. I'm not sure about the scope of the RfC. Should we ask whether the image should be included in the article at all, or whether it should be in the section on men's clothing? Would it make more sense to reorganize the article around specific garments, rather than the current broad division of men's and women's clothing, to reduce the confusion caused by a picture of a woman in a section about men's clothing? Ibadibam (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ibadibam, in my view, if we submit a RfC, our question should be whether or not such an image is appropriate at all, since it does NOT reflect traditional/religious Jewish clothing for women.Davidbena (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I must have overlooked it when reading. I have crossed-out my previous remark. In any case, in an article that speaks about "Jewish religious clothing," with an emphasis on "religious," do we want to portray an image that does not reflect the traditional view or religious view of what is appropriate for Jewish women to wear? It seems to run counter-productive to what we are trying to achieve here. That, however, can be determined by a wider range of views from contributing editors.Davidbena (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There's currently a photo of a woman wearing them--you want to remove that so you can assert they don't? I guess we need more references that some women do. Jonathunder (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As we can all see, we, the editors here, are disputed about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of this one image. We should, therefore, seek a consensus, as Misplaced Pages rules require of us in cases like this. Personally, I think an image of "unorthodox apparel" is tantamount to a fringe view or one that goes against WP:Weight, that is, when we step-aside, and ponder about the import of this article, and what it is exactly that we're trying to convey here. IMHO. We're not saying that Tefillin are never worn by women. Rather, we're saying that it is not a traditional item of dress for women. Davidbena (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I would always prefer not to engage in an edit war, but there is absolutely no reason why that image should be repeatedly removed; it illustrates the point that some progressive Jewish women (Reform and otherwise) do in fact use tfillin when davening, and the only reason it would be repeatedly removed is, to my mind, in service to some agenda that would prefer people not know or see Jewish women using tfillin. Unfortunately for these people, we live in a world where censorship is frowned upon; I am not interested in capitulating to Orthodox norms. The image is important because it illustrates an important concept; in the context of the Orthodox media establishment repeatedly literally erasing women from signage, catalogues, news stories, etc., this does not look good. The image stays. newmila (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

First, the article duly states that some women do, indeed, wear Tefillin (albeit only those of the Reform Movement who have broken-away from tradition). No one has tried to conceal this fact. An image, however, is far more subtle, in that it helps to convey first impressions about a certain thing, without the necessity of having to read through the fine details. At first glance, you would think that pairs of Tefillin are traditional Jewish garb for women, when, in actuality, they are not. To emphasize my point, let's say that we have an image of a religious Jewish woman wearing a man's coat (although she has done nothing amiss by doing so), would we still put that image in this article, to suggest that it is a norm of women's attire? Wouldn't it convey the wrong impressions? Since the title of this article clearly states "Jewish religious clothing," we can naturally expect to find those items that are traditionally worn in Jewish religious circles.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There are some women in practically all the modern Jewish religious movements (except, perhaps, among the Haredi and the Hasidic) who wear tallit and teffilin, not just the Reform. (Yes, that includes Orthodox Jewish women.) A good reason must be provided to remove the image; WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason. We used to experience edit wars at Falafel in which editors would replace all the images with images of falafel prepared by Arabs and add captions about where or by whom the falafel in the images had been prepared, as if that somehow helped the reader better understand a deep-fried ball of ground chick-peas. Unless the image is unclear—and it doesn't appear to be—does removing an image of a woman wearing a tallit and teffilin help the reader better understand what Jewish religious clothing looks like or how it is worn? If your primary concern is that readers may leave with the mistaken impression that they are traditional women's religious garments, edit the caption appropriately. Nobody seems concerned that readers will mistakenly think that all Jewish men wear payos, although every Jewish male in every one of the photos appears to wear them. Or that readers will mistakenly think that Jews only wear black and white clothes, although they appear to be the only colors of the clothes worn in any of the six photos in the article. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I like or what I dislike. In fact, I have NEVER deleted the image; not once. Rather, we're talking here about "Jewish religious clothing" that is widely accepted by the vast, vast majority of Jews, and whose view of Tefillin is that they are not habitually worn nor required by Jewish women, as you would normally think of a Jewish woman's accoutrement (e.g. head scarves, etc.) This, my friend, is similar to a religious woman wearing a man's coat. Look again at my previous response. Since we have already mentioned the fact that some women (who do not follow mainstream Judaism) do, indeed, wear Tefillin, and that this practice is scorned by the Jewish orthodox rabbis, I personally see no urgent need to have a misleading image in this important article. Of course, we'll need a consensus for removing the image. So far we have an equal number of editors "for"and "against". -- Davidbena (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of this discussion is to prepare the proposed RfC. It serves no one to begin to debate the issue itself here. As it currently stands, the proposed question is should File:Jewish_Woman_Praying.jpg or any other image of a woman wearing a tallit or tefillin be disallowed from this article. Does anyone have any amendment to that as an RfC question? Ibadibam (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I would point out the two opposing arguments; those, like me, who say that Tefillin do not represent an item of clothing worn specifically (habitually / traditionally) by Jewish women, and therefore cannot be representative of a religious woman's attire.Davidbena (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: From a cursory review of this subject, one would think by looking at the photo of this woman wearing Tefillin that it is a typical item of Jewish dress for women. Nothing could be further from the truth! We're not writing an article about Jewish exceptionalism, or about changing fads, but rather about Jewish culture and law. There is a Halacha that is well-known to every observant Jew, which states:

"Every affirmative biblical command that is contingent upon time (e.g. residing in a Sukkah on the 15th day of the lunar month Tishri, or donning Tefillin during the day but not at night), men are obligated to perform them, but women are exempt from doing them." (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 29a)

This teaching has been the common practice among Jews in all places for ages, and is forever perpetuated in the legal codes known to the Jewish nation, such as in Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law, the Mishne Torah (Hil. Avodah Zarah 12:3). You see, it has never been vogue for Jewish women to wear Tefillin (phylacteries) and, therefore, the image is misleading.

References

1. Kiddushin 29a. קידושין כט א  (in Hebrew) – via Wikisource.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davidbena (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not Halachipedia. Our article should describe the diversity of Jewish religious clothing, not just a particular Orthodox view on what women must not wear. Jonathunder (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not about diversity at all, but a case of misrepresentation of Jewish "religious" clothing worn by men and women. The emphasis here is on "religious." We're not talking about trends that go against the Jewish religion. If that were the case, we could simply change the title of this article to read: "Popular Jewish Trends in Clothing." This is none other but a fringe view that should have no overdue weight, except as an aside mention in the article itself, and it is for this reason that we have Misplaced Pages:RfC. Hopefully, the broader input of others will help us reach a consensus here.Davidbena (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, what you are advocating here is tantamount to having taken the Misplaced Pages article on Judaism and uploading an image of Jews praying in a Church. The fact that there are fellow Jews who do this does not make its insertion indicative of the whole, nor the Jewish norm.Davidbena (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing seems particularly "trendy" or "faddish" about women wearing tallit and teffilin, and this encyclopedia hasn't been renamed MaleSupremapedia yet, has it? Please don't start talking about what's indicative of Jewish norms, because if we're being honest, very little of the religious clothing shown in this article is indicative of the norms of what Jewish men or women wear. By wearing any religious garments at all, the people in the images are already outliers among Jewish men and women in today's world. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing "trendy" or "faddish"?! Are you serious? My friend, you're either out-of-touch with reality, or else purposely resisting what you know to be true. We'll leave the matter up to the community at large to decide, once we submit our RfC.Davidbena (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the section about tallit and tefillin completely, as they are not clothing. The same is true for the pictures. If we do have something about tallit and tefillin, I think that a picture of a woman is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tzitzit are not clothing. But the tallit to which the tzitzit are tied is a garment, even if it is not a mundane one. Some authorities have said that women shouldn't wear traditional tallitot not only because they aren't obligated in tzitzit but because it is a male garment. Some women only wear tallitot made in certain styles and fabrics that are considered more feminine so as to hold with this distinction. This is the source of the erstwhile policy at the Kotel of allowing women to wear "shawl" style tallitot but not traditional, full-sized tallitot. The fact that Orthodox authorities feel the need to issue policies around women wearing tallitot and tefillin indicates that women are wearing tallitot and tefillin. I doubt there are hard numbers as to what percentage of Jewish women wear these items regularly, but I expect we editors can find sufficient sources to indicate that it is a phenomenon of note. Remember that WP:UNDUE doesn't mean modern or radical practices and viewpoints should be altogether excluded from documentation in this encyclopedia, only that the article should properly contextualize the scope and significance of those practices and viewpoints. Ibadibam (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: The explanation which you offer seems hardly satisfactory, given that even the Rabbis whom you mentioned agree that this is not a bona fide Jewish religious custom. Perhaps a good analogy would be this: If an article on Misplaced Pages deals with America's "Rocket Science Industry," you wouldn't come along and put a picture of a child playing with a "toy rocket" (although there are many children who do so), and say that the picture represents America's "Rocket Science Industry." It is the same here respecting this article and that one image. Even in Misplaced Pages's Guidelines for good editing, we have been admonished about doing so in Misplaced Pages:Weight, which I'll quote for you here:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

Let the matter rest until we can defer the question to others, who are our peerage, and who have no vested interest in one side or the other. The better judgment of those who come after us and who have read these conflicting arguments will decide the fate of this image. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you intend no offense, and wouldn't be so sexist as to equate the sincere religious observances of modern Jewish women to children playing at rocket science, although even juxtaposing the two is neither objective nor persuasive. And I'm confused that you would say that religious, non-Orthodox Jews, who make up about 71% of the Jews in my country and 35% in yours, are a "tiny minority". The guideline we're discussing is meant to help us achieve balance, not to encourage us to advance a single point of view that considers itself the canonical or "bona fide" authority to the exclusion of all others.

As for continuing the discussion...I offered draft language for the RfC six days ago, since when you have made six more comments carrying on a discussion you now apparently want to close. I rather think it's productive to get it all out here so that the RfC can be more concise and not burden its contributors with repetitive arguments. Ibadibam (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, we're not talking here about Jewish clothing in general, but rather about Jewish religious clothing, for which there is a consensus about what is considered "religious" clothing by those who, themselves, are religious. When we submit the RfC it will be concise. This section here will be used merely for their reference.

By the way, have you seen this Jerusalem Post article? Why do Orthodox women not wear Tefillin or Tallit? There are other online articles as well, such as here.-- Davidbena (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we mean the same thing by religious Jews? I use that term to mean those Jews who do not identify as secular, atheist, or converts to some other religion, to the inclusion of Haredi, Reform, Modern Orthodox, Masorti, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and non-denominational Jews. If a Jewish person of any gender wears clothing for a religious Jewish purpose, that person is wearing Jewish religious clothing. Orthodox sources are reliable for documenting Orthodox practices but not necessarily for documenting other streams of Judaism. By the way, I've found some scholarly and journalistic sources that document the modern phenomenon of women wearing tallit and tefillin and do a better job than My Jewish Learning (which in my opinion is borderline unreliable anyway). Do you mind if I go ahead and make some brief additions to the article? Ibadibam (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

As shown by the sources provided, it is not an accepted Jewish religious practice for women to don Tefillin, a view clearly proscribed in rabbinic Halacha (Rambam, et al.). Religious clothing worn by each gender (male and female) is clearly defined under the parameters of Jewish law, and it is not something that we personally decide on for our own selves. Modern-day phenomena are just that... "phenomena," not having a solid basis in Jewish Halacha. Since it is a fringe view, even by your own admission, we should only mention this as a side-note, but no more, in accordance with WP:Due. You are free to edit as you wish, but bear in mind that your edits should reflect the general trend. Our discussion here pertains to the image.Davidbena (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope my additions meet with your approval. I kept it as concise as I could.

Please by all means correct me if I'm making an unfair interpretation, but you seem to assume a single, universal scale of Jewish religiosity, and that the word religious denotes strict adherence to halakha. I understand that viewpoint to be particular to Orthodox Judaism. Adherents of other streams of Judaism express and measure religiosity in different ways that are no less inherent to their respective conceptions of the Jewish religion. So while Reform practices may be less halakhic, they are nevertheless religious. While Misplaced Pages should absolutely emphasize the significance of halakha—indeed, it is impossible to describe Judaism without it—I think it goes too far to dismiss less stringent Jewish movements as fringe groups that are not actually participating in Judaism, because that is a sectarian viewpoint and, as Jonathunder pointed out, not appropriate to an encyclopedia that follows a policy of neutrality. Ibadibam (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, particularly in an article that is entitled "Jewish religious clothing." What you are suggesting would be more applicable in an article entitled "Jewish dress trends," without the word "religious." To put it bluntly, the image evokes a form of religious rebellion, based on mainstream Jewish religious practice that is practised by 99.9% of all Jews worldwide. Since this is the case, one would not be mistaken if he were to say that the image is a reflection of "impiety." It is counter-productive to what this article is trying to convey. The image, however, can and perhaps ought to be used in an article entitled, "Feminist movement," whose worldview is one of equality between the sexes and which often seeks to advance "masculinity" in women. This is not the article for that, since it contravenes Misplaced Pages's own interdict, clearly defined in Misplaced Pages:Due, which requires of us to project the prominent view, with less prominent views mentioned as an aside. By the way, Ibadibam, I saw your edit, and it is very good! Thanks! It adds more clarity to the matter at hand. Davidbena (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are you getting this "99.9% of all Jews worldwide" statistic? Jonathunder (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

What a load of crap. Most Jews around the world don't wear any religious clothing. Please see WP:PROPORTION. We shouldn't write this article based strictly on halakha, nor should it be weighted based only on how common religious clothing is. It should be based on the relative weight given its various subjects in reliable sources on the subject, including but not exclusively traditional and historical religious texts. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

First, to clarify my statement. I wasn't referring to Jewish clothing as a whole, but to specific articles of clothing worn by religious Jews, which, by the way, there is a clear consensus in Jewish religious law (e.g. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 29a) what this entails and what is acceptable in our varied societies (which often is merely dependent upon one's ethnic identity and culture). This article is about Jewish religious clothing, not about Jewish trends in clothing. As for the question about percentages, actually the use of tefillin by Jewish women is far more less than what I initially mentioned, with perhaps only 1 woman (Reform) out of every 10,000 Jewish men who will wear them. The figures are only estimates, based on what we've seen. Here, in Israel, I have never seen, in over 40 years of living in this country, one Jewish woman who would wear them, but I have seen literally hundreds of Jewish men wear them. I have been trying to reach an agreement with you, here, before raising the issue in a RfC, since the community at large will most-likely not be knowledgeable about Jewish laws and customs. There is also a possibility that we will raise this issue on the Administrators Notice board about compliance with Misplaced Pages:Due, as this is seen by many here as a clear deviation from Misplaced Pages policy. My suggestion would be to put-up a different image of a religious woman's attire.Davidbena (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder:, and @Newmila:, hoping that all is well. I wanted to ask you about your feelings concerning the following image, here, showing a very limited religious woman's ethnic attire. The emphasis here is on ethnicity, but which has a universal agreement of it being a quintessential "religious" garment worn by Jewish women in Yemen. The specific article of clothing is called gargush, and it was made to comply with the Orthodox mandate on females covering their hair. It acts as a hoodlike headpiece which extends onto the shoulders, and is closed under the chin by a button. If you will agree to its use in the current article, perhaps we can replace the controversial image with this one. What do you think?

References

1. Chico, Beverly (Oct 3, 2013). Hats and Headwear around the World: A Cultural Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 193–194.
2. Yedid, Rachel; Bar-Maoz, Danny, eds. (2018), "The Clothing of the Jews of Yemen", Ascending the Palm Tree – An Anthology of the Yemenite Jewish Heritage, Rehovot: E'ele BeTamar, p. 166, OCLC 1041776317

----Davidbena (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Davidbena: If you'd like to include the image of Yemenite Jewish women wearing gargushim, I think that's wonderful, and very inclusive of a minority Jewish practice. However, it's not a ritual garment the way tfillin are, and I think equating women observing kisui rosh using a specific garment, to women wearing tfillin, is absolutely absurd and completely disingenuous. We all understand that you would prefer to put forward an image of Jewish religiosity that's in accordance with Orthodox Judaism, but unfortunately, not every Jew on wikipedia has the same interests as you, and many of us understand that we should prioritize accuracy over ideology. Religious Jewish women (including but not limited to Orthodox Jewish women) do wear tfillin, and your repeated tantrums about this are a clear illustration of why this image needs to stay up. newmila (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Newmila

First, no one equated a Head Covering (kisui rosh) with Tefillin. In fact, they are dissimilar. One is a quintessential religious garment worn by women (i.e. head coverings), while the other (i.e. Tefillin) are a quintessential religious artifact worn almost exclusively by men (whereas those women who do wear Tefillin do so by contravening accepted Jewish practice and Jewish religious norms). I hope that you can see the difference. This makes the image a fringe view and misleading, even by your own standards, as this article is neither about ideology or promoting the interests of others, as you assumed, but about accurately portraying what is considered Jewish "religious clothing." The image of the woman wearing Tefillin would be best served in an article like Women of the Wall, who openly admit to their ultra-liberal views and non-conforming practices as related to religion. Since the article does, indeed, accurately mention this fringe view, I see no real reason why we should take it one step further by giving equal prominence to this practice by inserting this misleading photograph, per Misplaced Pages:Due.Davidbena (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

How is tefillin "clothing" at all? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. From a pure linguistic perspective, Tefillin are not "clothing" at all, but only an artifact that is worn by men, especially during the morning prayer. That, in itself, is another reason for the removal of the image.Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder:, if we can get your agreement to exchange the current image with the picture of those three young Jewish women wearing traditional religious clothing we'll have a clear majority and we will go ahead and do this. Do we have your agreement?Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• There should not be a picture of a person wearing tefillin since tefillin is not clothing, and in this case, the picture of the woman wearing tefillin is there just to be pointy. It should be removed in my opinion. Sir Joseph 01:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is my view as well. I will object strenuously if someone tries to remove the same image from Tefillin, but here? A different picture would be better. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the mention of Tefillin from the article and the picture as well. Sir Joseph 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • And I restored it. When you achieve consensus to remove it, go ahead. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • What does tefillin have to do with this article? And I believe I do have consensus. Also, I understand your MO on Misplaced Pages is to be snarky and negative, but try to be descriptive in your edit summaries. Furthermore, it appears you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS . I repeat, this is not the place to go on a crusade about women's rights. Tefillin has no place in this article. Sir Joseph 03:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I noticed you removed the image and mention of women wearing tefillin but not that of a man. Was this an oversight or an intentional differentiation? Ibadibam (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I didn't add that, Malik did.Sir Joseph 05:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I see less of a problem with the image, but with the caption. If included we should have a caption clearly stating Orthodox rejection of women wearing these while stating acceptance from other branches. As evident in this discusaion there is a strong dispute over this, and it should be evident in our caption and body text.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, the issue is not the women wearing Tefillin, indeed if you go to the Tefillin page, this image is there. It's that Tefillin is not clothing and this image, or any prominent image with Tefillin shouldn't be on the page. Sir Joseph 13:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Seh's also with a talit. What about the picture of the man (top left) also with tefillin?Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's all about the focus. The man's photo is mostly all taalit. You hardly notice the tefillin, indeed, I don't think I noticed it at all until the caption was changed. In this instance, the focus is the tefillin, indeed, the sole purpose of this photo is to show a women wearing tefillin. Sir Joseph 14:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The prayer shawl is also the most prominent thing in the photo of the woman. It's about the entirety of her attire, illustrating the female version for balance. If the article only shows men engaging in religious practice, it's unbalanced. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, the main focus on the women's photo is the tefillin, you really need to know what you are looking at to tell she is wearing a tallit while the man's photo you can tell he's wearing something, and not just a scarf or a shawl. And you just answered our issue with the photo, this is not an article about religious practice, it's an article about religious clothing. The photo with a women and tefillin is already prominently displayed in the Tefillin article where it belongs. Sir Joseph 14:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Most Jewish women do not wear this attire (not accceptable in Orthodox communities. It is optional in conservative and reform communities - however most (depends on kehila - takeup by women varies by locale) women do not wear this) As a compromise I would leave a woman wearing what was in the past the religious attire of men (either this image or one less focused on tefilin) - and clearly state the dispute here. This is normal (though optional) in some communities - and very not normal in others. Women of the Wall has some more images.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two issues, this is about clothing, not religious items, which tefillin would be. This is only about clothing, which tefillin is not. Sir Joseph 14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I was too distracted by the caption. Since women wearing tallit are mentioned in the article, the "offending" picture could be returned to this page with a caption emphasizing the tallit, rather than the tefillin. That said, I think a different picture, such as one of the pictures at Women of the Wall, would do that job better.

I also think that since "Tallit, tzitzit, and tallit katan" is a third-level heading under the second-level "Men's clothing", it might be useful to add a fourth-level heading there to the effect of "Use of tzitzit by women", so that it is not hidden in the outline. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This article was originally organized around garments as second-level headings. Later a section was added with a title something like "Women's head coverings", and so the other sections were grouped together into "Men's clothing". If we removed these broader sections and returned to the original organization, the article would probably be less confusing. @Sir Joseph: would your objection to this photo be addressed by an image that more prominently illustrated the tallit, such as this one or this one? @Icewhiz: it has already been argued over whether what Orthodox women do in public characterizes the practices of "most Jewish women" and I think reliable sources have demonstrated conclusively that that's not the case. Ibadibam (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: - it is more like no Orthodox women (possibly with some outliers in ultra modern settings, and there probably in women prayers). And just some conservative and reform women. In some conservative congregations - while it is optional - I have seen actual use often being less than 10% and sometimes no one. It is optional - and many choose to forgo the option. Reform is more complex - some communities forgo traditional garments all together. Most Jewish women do not wear talits (and I dare you to show a source saying otherwise - a congregation handing out talits equally in bar/bat-mitzvah does not count). The easy solution here, in my mind, is to have an image (best one we agree on) of a women in a talit - and state clearly the differing customs here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for your response and for your proposed solution that is moving us in a productive direction. I haven't found a source to substantiate your figure of 10%. What sources I have found about the practice, which document that it does occur but not to what extent, I have added to this article. But for that matter, I'm not sure we have sources that document the extent of any Jewish practice, because no one is conducting and publishing surveys that I can find. We should be careful about using WP:OR to declare something common or uncommon. Ibadibam (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you're trafficking in the usual half-truths that pass for "facts" here. It's true that most Jewish women don't wear tallit or teffilin. It's equally true that most Jewish men don't wear tallit or teffilin. So what? I don't think there's any factual basis for your 10% figure, except your limited personal experience. I won't waste your time with my personal experience because it's equally irrelevant.

And I won't engage in a silly debate over "Are teffilin religious clothing?" Are tzitzit clothing? Is a kippah or a shtreimel an article of "clothing"? Is a tichel or a sheitel an article of "clothing"? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? People—Jews and non-Jews alike—view them as religious garments, so they're religious garments. There's nothing to debate. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Most women in Jewish shuls, prayers, burials, or weddings do not wear talits. A minority do. While the Orthodox opposition is easy to source, a talit tracking statistics bureau does not exist AFAIK. My suggested compromise is including the photo and dispute. Unless we find a "TalitStats" somewhere - then obviously editors' estimates are OR.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tzitzit is clothing, which is why it has tzitizt. Which is why a blanket or cover does not have tzitzit. It's not an article of clothing. Same as tichel, etc. Sir Joseph 01:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this image represent someone wearing standard Jewish religious clothing? No: Authorities have differed as to whether women are prohibited, permitted or encouraged to wear them. The inclusion of this image, without any reference to the fact that the concept is rejected by a large number of scholars or to the fact that acceptance among recent generations of scholars is heavily weighted toward those who reject halakha or invent their own, gives undue weight to the practice by making it seem ordinary in this article that necessarily covers law-and-culture rather than covering all clothing practices (religious or nonreligious) among Jews. Obviously we need to report the concept in the body of the article, but if we're reporting this precise controversy in connection with the image, the in-body coverage of reasoning needs to be expanded (until I read citation #3, I assumed that the issue was cross-dressing, rather than the necessity of maintaining a clean body), and without a good deal of additional text, this image dominates the section to the point of undue weight. By the way, note that this image is in a Men's clothing section, not the Women's clothing section, or a section specifically covering clothing for men and women; it documents something controversial and should only appear in connection with a proportional discussion of the controversy. And finally, don't object that I'm blinded by the practice of my own religious group — I'm a Christian, and my Jewish ancestors (all patrilineal) were Reform. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

PS, the inclusion of this image in a section on men's clothing has another issue; it's potential WP:UNDUE in the other direction. As source 3 notes, it has been argued that this is a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5 (A woman must not put on men's apparel... in NJPS; I don't have any translations of the targumim), so someone could reasonably understand this image placement as implying that she's cross-dressing. However, only a few decisors have advocated this interpretation and many have rejected it, we need to be careful not to give the appearance of advocating such a position ourselves or of saying that the rabbis of the Talmudic or post-Talmudic eras have generally accepted such a position. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add that 1. the burden of proof for inclusion is on those who wanted to add this image. 2. consensus here is clear, and the burden of proof has not only not been met, rather the contrary. Restring this image will be considered disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This past Sabbath, I reviewed three rabbinic sources on the subject of Tefillin and women; one of which shows a little more leniency in permitting women to wear them, whereas one is more stringent and does not permit women to wear them. I'll cite the three sources for all to see here:

• Shulhan Arukh (Orach Chaim 38:3): "Women and slaves are exempt from Tefillin, since it is an assertive command contingent upon time." (Rabbi Moses Isserles adds there in the name of the Kol Bo: "And if women wish, for themselves, to behave stringently , they reprimand them.")
• Aharon HaLevi (Sefer ha-Chinuch §421): "...This commandment (of wearing Tefillin) is observed in every place and at all times, among males, but not among females, since it is an assertive command that is contingent upon time. In any rate, if they (i.e. women) wanted to wear them, they do not reprimand them; as they have a reward , however, not as the reward of a man, seeing that the reward of those who are commanded and who do it (i.e. men) is not the same as the reward of those who are not commanded and, yet, do it. And in Tractate Eruvin, at the start of the chapter, He who finds Tefillin (page 96, folio a), those of blessed memory have stated that Michal, the daughter of Saul, would wear Tefillin, and the Sages did not reprimand her ."
• Elsewhere we find a Mishnah (Berakhot 3:3) that states: "Women and slaves and small children are exempt from reciting Kiryat Shema, and from Tefillin, but are obligated to say the prayer and to install a doorpost script (Mezuzzah), and to say Grace over their meals." Incidentally, Maimonides, in his Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah, Hil. Tefillin 4:13) rules this as Halachah, saying: "Anyone exempt from reciting Kiryat Shema is exempt from Tefillin."

By these teachings, it is plain that women who do wear them are, by no means, representative of the normative practice. A note of this practice in the body of the article should, in my view, be sufficient. On the other hand, the image is, indeed, fitting and applicable in the article on Tefillin.Davidbena (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: When I originally grouped several sections together into "Men's clothing", that image did not yet exist in the article and there was very little content about women's use of those garments. In retrospect, the division between men's and women's clothing is not so clear and I probably shouldn't have made this organizational choice. If we changed to something closer to the original layout, with each garment having its own level 2 heading, would the image's current placement within the "Tallit" section make more sense? Ibadibam (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If there's a significant amount of additional content from secondary sources, not primary sources like news reports about the latest controversy over this or that; feel free to bring in journals, books, etc. discussing the use of certain kinds of clothing, including tallit and tefillin, whether in the past or in recent years, including general discussions over recent disputes if they've been covered in such literature. It would, however, be more helpful to balance this recent image with an image of a woman wearing them in compliance with the more-lenient medieval authorities; remember that Commons:Category:Jewish clothing has a good number of images, and old drawings are likely to be in the public domain in many or most countries. One caution Would such a division make more sense than splitting between men's and women's? To a non-Jew, it looks fine, but if the relevant sections of the Talmud or if relevant post-Talmudic authors routinely speak of some religious clothing as men's and some as female (i.e. it's a standard classification), we need to reflect the sources. As a Christian, I'm familiar only with Tanakh, which doesn't address the topic much at all, so beyond "check the sources" I can't say either way. If authoritative writers don't use such a division, sure go ahead, as it avoids some of the potential issues I raised without bringing in new ones. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• To make matters even more complicated, there is a difference between say a Tallit and a snood or kippah. One might be a religious item, and one is just an item of clothing worn by religious people, but has no religious significance. We should make mention of that in the article as well. Indeed, when we dispose of a tallit, we dispose of it in a manner as specified in accordance with halacha, whereas when we dispose of a snood or kippah, we chuck it in the trash or give it to the kids to use as playthings. Sir Joseph 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is a Request for Comment over the appropriateness or inappropriateness of an image shown in this article (File:Jewish_Woman_Praying.jpg), which purports to show "Jewish religious clothing." The arguments of pros and cons have been outlined here and in this article's Talk-Page. This RfC comes in compliance with the request of an administrator, who sees the matter as a "straightforward content dispute."Davidbena (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Editor's Opinion:

• Oppose image insertion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbena (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include woman in talit (either this or other pic), clarify this is contentious in Orthodox circles. Some Jewish women wear talits and other garb formerly used only by men. Yes, this is a point of contention - even significant contention in the past few decades. We do not have a source saying just how many do (as it is optional in many kehilot, and stats on uptake (which I estimate is low - my OR) are not really available). We should not sweep women in talits under the rug, but nor should we gloss over this being contentious - the solution in my mind is including a pic of a women (possibly in a different section, possibly one without tefillin) - and clearly state the contention in the caption.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• I came here from the RfC listing, and otherwise have never edited this page. It seems to me that the issue is how to identify the image, rather than whether or not to include it. Given the complexities of the issue, I think that it would be wrong to label it simply as a woman wearing Jewish religious clothing. Rather, it should be labeled in the image caption as an example of one kind of religious attire worn by some Jewish women, and the image caption should briefly summarize the differences of views. I agree with Icewhiz that it might be a good idea to pair it with a second image, perhaps using Template:Multiple image. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of the image. It is not representative of Jewish religious clothing, "representative" being the clue here. Rather this is an undue drawing of attention to a very minor and group of religious fanatics. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for all reasons I mentioned above. And just to reiterate, the issue is one of clothing, Tefillin is not clothing. The image is indeed displayed on the Tefillin page. Sir Joseph 00:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support continued inclusion of image. This is a general interest encyclopedia, not Halakhapedia or a guide to traditional Orthodox Jewish practices. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

While you are correct in saying that our online encyclopedia is not Halacha-centric, in articles such as these relating to Jewish Halacha, we still must reflect the mainstream view on Halacha. What you are suggesting would be dishonest to our constituency, particular where an article speaks about Jewish "religious" or "halachic" clothing or practices.Davidbena (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. Religious (in this sense) ≠ halachic. (And I'm Orthodox.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can agree here to disagree. The "Jewish religion" or "Jewish religious practices" are not things subject to the whims and fancies of individuals, but have been decided upon by group consensus over a long period of time. If it's not "halachic" it's not "religious," and if the practice is quintessentially a "Jewish religious" practice, it is also Halacha. Just look-up the meaning of Halacha. Trends, however, would fall under a different category. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Different Jews disagree on Halacha. The conservative movement follows Halacha, yet per its parsing of Halacha womej may (but are not required to) wear talits.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That is true, only in the fine details. There is no dispute among Jews in the general practice of mainstream Judaism; we all observe Passover (Pesach) on the 15th day of the lunar month Nisan and do not eat leavened bread; we all circumcise our sons on the eighth day after birth; we all listen to the shofar being blown on Rosh Hashannah, and we all daven three times a day, except on Sabbath days - which is four times, and on Yom Kippur we fast and make five prayers; and we all admit that the Torah was given at Sinai, and that in it (Deuteronomy 6:8) men - not women - were those who were commanded to don Tefillin, based on the explanation of this commandment in all the books on Jewish Halacha, although it is also stated that if a woman should ever decide to do so, she does so voluntarily and not because she is commanded to do so, it being no religious precept for her to do so.Davidbena (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You use "mainstream" as if it's synonymous with "Orthodox" and halakha is if it's synonymous with Misplaced Pages policy. I'd love to chat with you more about the surprising diversity of Jewish practice, on your userpage or mine, but we're starting to overrun the scope of this RfC. Ibadibam (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This has very little to do with "Misplaced Pages policy" as it does more with representing authentic Jewish practice. Mainstream is mainstream, which includes all the different branches of the Torah-keeping community (religious community), and which are all more similar than dissimilar (excepting in local customs). Mainstream Judaism, by definition, would exclude the groups that do not keep a semblance of Judaism at all, or who have sought innovations in traditional and accepted Jewish practices.Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep image per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Arguments against inclusion are based on a sectarian, fundamentalist viewpoint, namely that Orthodox Judaism is the "only" Judaism and all other streams of the religion are "fringe".
  Some context:
  • A number of ultra-Orthodox communities prohibit images of women, especially of women not dressed according to Orthodox law, and routinely censor such images in print, web, and various forms of advertising.
  • While religious, non-Orthodox streams such as Reform and Conservative constitute a majority of religious Jews around the world, there is a sectarian viewpoint, peculiar to Orthodox Judaism, that non-Orthodox Judaism is not "real" Judaism and that only Orthodox Judaism constitutes an authentic religious practice (for cases in point, see the above !vote by Debresser, and comments in preceding discussion by Davidbena and Sir Joseph). But it should be tautologically self-evident that religious, non-Orthodox Jews do not self-identify as either "not Jewish" or "not religious".
  • As to this image itself, it is documented by reliable sources that Jewish women do wear the tallit, and that this is more common in non-Orthodox communities than in Orthodox ones. The extent of this practice is not well documented. Therefore any competing claims that the practice is fringe or mainstream are entirely anecdotal.

In many ways this RfC and the preceding discussion are a proxy for the debate as to whether non-Orthodox Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, etc) is a fringe practice in its entirety, and whether its adherents, who constitute the largest segment of religious Jews worldwide, are actually Jewish. Misplaced Pages does not hold one denomination of any religion to be the sole legitimate one, and edit articles according to that denomination's values. As Malik Shabazz mentioned in their above !vote, there is already a wiki for that, and it isn't this one. Ibadibam (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• • • firstly, please remove my name from your comment, I said nothing of the sort and you're putting words into my mouth. Secondly, we are talking about tefillin here, not tallis and everything else you are bringing up is irrelevant. Sir Joseph 05:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I named you in error and I'm sorry. I have struck your name from my comment. On the second point, we are talking about the suitability of an image depicting both tefillin and a tallit in a section titled "Tallit, tzitzit, and tallit katan", so discussing talleism is perfectly relevant. Ibadibam (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ibadibam Tallis and/or tefillin are worn by only a few women, a fringe group, and historically that is the same. That is a fact, not a sectarian point of view. Ergo having the contended image is undue attention and as a matter of fact not representative of the subject of this article (rather to the contrary). Debresser (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Reform, Progressive, Conservative and Masorti Jews do not constitute a fringe group, but rather a majority of religious Jews. If you instead mean to say that the practice is not common within these movements, by all means, provide a source that says so. Our current body of sources supports the existence of the practice and doesn't identify it as particularly uncommon in modern times. I do think it would be great to expand the article with more information about historical Jewish clothing in general. Ibadibam (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
      • But their women don't wear a tallit "en masse". Just a few of them. And tefillin even less. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the image, add other images and improve this mediocre article. An article in the Times of Israel called "Orthodox girls fight for the right to don tefillin: As young women come of age and demand more gender equality, observant communities are made to contend with a heady dose of halachic egalitarianism" makes it clear that this is not some sort of extreme and rare anti-Orthodox deviation from normative Judaism. This article is not called Haredi religious clothing but ought to represent Jewish religious clothing all the way back to the high priests, throughout the millennia, reflecting the religious clothing of diverse Jewish cultures and of Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Renewal Jews as well as the Orthodox. It is commonplace to see women wearing tallitot and kippot while praying and reading from the Torah in non-Orthodox synagogues. Such photos should be included in this article. A section on the distinctive religious clothing of the Yemenite Jews is obvious and many other Jewish subcultures through the ages wore various forms of unusual and notable Jewish religious clothing. Just consider the quirky medieval Jewish hat which began as a symbol of proud community identity but ended up as a social stigma imposed by gentile civil authorities. Why no images of religious clothing from those days? We also need more photos of Orthodox women wearing their most common head coverings, and better images and prose in general. I am concerned by an assumption implicit in the arguments against this image: namely, that ultra-Orthodox editors have some special right to control articles about Jewish religious practices. Most Israeli Jews are not Orthodox and in the United States, #2 in Jewish population, there are far more Jews affiliated with non-Orthodox synagogues than Orthodox ones. Therefore, articles about these practices must fully represent non-Orthodox practice as well, neutrally, and never favoring one branch over the others. Anything else violates the neutral point of view, a core content policy. If consensus is that this photo should be removed because the woman donned tefillin (which is not clothing), then all photos of men with tefillin should be removed as well. All that being said, the photo in question ought to be moved into the women's section, as it were. I will leave this image alone until consensus is reached, but I plan to add and move other images and make other changes to the article, based on reliable sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  So, Cullen, are you saying that there is no issue touching upon "prominence" here, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Due? This, too, ought to be upheld, as far as Misplaced Pages's policies are concerned. IMHO.---Davidbena (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  The solution to that problem is to expand and improve the article, so that no one but zealots see it as undue. The Times of Israel article I linked to above shows that your assessment of this practice among Jewish women was flawed. We do not need to say that it is commonplace although women wearing tallitot at non-Orthodox synagogues is commonplace, and the image also shows this woman wearing a tallit. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Cullen, I read your link, and from top to bottom the author admits that the practice is not yet widespread, and that many shuls are reluctant to adopt its practice. Still, I do agree with you that the article can be expanded, and these finer points brought out in the article. Overall, we're having a good and pertinent discussion on this important issue. There are also other articles, such as the Jerusalem Post article, Why do Orthodox women not wear Tefillin or Tallit?, and the Sefaria.org article here. Hopefully, we'll reach an agreement that everyone can be satisfied with. My primary objection to the image is that it leaves a "first impression" of a practice that has rabbinic sanction, when the matter is dubious at best. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cullen328 Your idea to add many more images to this article is in itself not a good idea. The added notion of thereby legitimizing the contended image is double wrong. You are going to have to establish consensus for your idea before you try again (as I have reverted a large part of your additions, although some of the changes and additions I liked too). Debresser (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely correct that the article is in need of expansion. To start with, very few of the topics in Category:Jewish religious clothing are currently covered. That said, I think we should aim for expanding the text first, and photos second, so as to avoid crowding the page and to stick to illustrating the topics that are actually in the article. If we first develop balanced text, it will more naturally facilitate the balanced use of images. Let's keep working on it! Ibadibam (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep image, the topic is interesting to a wider readership and the caption can reflect the fact it is not orthodox. The article is here to inform not to mirror one point of view or to exclude controversy. Does it add to a readers understanding of the article: yes. As Cullen328 and others have pointed out, the solution is to improve the article not restrict an image which is informative. The issue of DUE is being used incorrectly here imo, this rationale would only apply if the subject of the article was Orthodox Jewish religious clothing. Clearly on the page we don't see pictures of Jewish people not wearing religious clothing which is of course the vast majority, but no one is advocating for that as we all understand that doesn't inform. Mramoeba (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Nyttend (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep image since those coming to this page should be able to find out about this item of clothing. Jzsj (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the image. Quoting from WP:5P2, "In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view,"" this is an example of multiple points of view. As the image is real and represents an approach to this religious practice, it should remain. I do agree that stating that this image is an example of diverse, real, practice may help to show that the traditions are clearly alive and interpreted in different ways by real people. That is the essence of what it means to be an encyclopedia, namely that all human experiences and knowledge is included while being written from a neutral point of view. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. It is Jewish; it is religious; it is clothing; that it is contrary to an Orthodox point of view is a good reason to keep it. I'm not sure there's any reason for the article to exist, however; there are articles about each individual piece of clothing, and it could be simply a section in Judaism. --jpgordon 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• CommentI think people are confusing tallit and teffilin. This rfc is about the teffilin, not tallit. Teffilin is not clothing. That is the objection. There is a in the teffilin article, but this is an article of clothing, not religious articles. Sir Joseph 17:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, there is no misunderstanding, although obviously I don't speak for others. You have consistently pointed out you do not consider teffilin as clothing so your position is absolutely clear now. That said the image is not just of teffilin, it is of a woman wearing Jewish religious clothing. My position remains unaltered. Cheers Mramoeba (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, since you imply that it's just me, nobody considers Tefillin clothing, which is why it's not discussed in this article. That is why the picture is POINTY. There is no other picture on this page with Tefillin. The picture of the woman wearing tefillin has at its focus the tefillin, not tallit and for most people, they wouldn't even be able to tell that she's wearing a tallit. The purpose of the picture in this article is just to be pointy and not serve any valid interest. Sir Joseph 22:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I implied nothing of the sort. You've made your comments clearly and repeatedly and now it is customary to listen to others and hear other perspectives. This is an RfC. Mramoeba (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC) *Edit note: couple of editors are linking 'pointy', there's no disruption going on, just disagreement. I've seen this invoked many times when people think it means someone is doing something just to make a contentious point, but that's not what it means, as per WP:NOTPOINTy. Mramoeba (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The only picture on this page with Tefillin, is a picture of a woman wearing Tefillin, when if you have 100 people with Tefillin, you would have 99.9 men and less than .1 women wearing Tefillin in the real world. Sir Joseph 15:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your position on tefillin is clear, and well taken, but there is nothing in the RfC statement that limits this discussion to tefillin. The scope of this RfC concerns the image in its entirety, without narrowing to any one element of that image. Ibadibam (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I consider arguments that women don't or shouldn't wear tallit or tefillin as irrelevant to this conversation; clearly they do. The question has solely to do with whether they are clothing. Are they clothing when men wear them? At the time I leave this comment, the article does discuss the tallit as an article of clothing, which would seem to indicate that an image of a person wearing a tallit is appropriate for the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is not the picture of a tallit, the issue is the picture of the woman in tefillin. Right now the only picture of someone wearing tefillin is a picture of a woman wearing tefillin. Sir Joseph 15:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: As I have said before, I think it is absolutely appropriate—even essential—for there to be a picture of a woman wearing a tallit (or women wearing tallitot) on this page. I'm not especially excited about this image, because the tefillin are so very prominent, because tefillin shouldn't really be a topic on the page, and, frankly, because women wearing tefillin are still a pretty rare phenomenon. In short, I find this image POINTY. I simply think there are plenty of images to illustrate the point besides this one.

On the other hand, with due respect to some of my friends who have written above, women wearing tallitot are certainly not even remotely WP:FRINGE (no pun intended, although it works!). It's a very, very common practice in non-Orthodox congregations. Like it or not, the majority of Jews in the United States, at least, identify with non-Orthodox religious streams, and this practice is common-to-normative for them. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. As I said earlier, the focus of the picture in question is the Tefillin. When you look at the picture, you see Tefillin, you don't see the tallit. I agree with you that it's rather POINTY, and as it stands now, the article is UNDUE that the one picture with Tefillin is a) not needed because this article should not have a picture of Tefillin, and b) it's of an uncommon practice. Sir Joseph 15:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: would you please stop bludgeoning this RfC and step back. Mramoeba (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with him. Sir Joseph 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As mentioned, there are already three pictures of women and only one of men. The argument can also be made that tefillin are not classically clothing. But even if they are, the article is unduly weighted to images of women, and if one should be removed, shouldn't it be the one that causes the most conflict? A second picture of a man or men is more appropriate than a third picture of women; especially one that causes discomfort and upsetness to a group of Wikimedians. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not censored, but that doesn't mean we should be throwing in every uncomfortable picture to poke people's eyes out. Compromise is an important element of having a collaborative project. Outside of a compelling reason as to why specifically a woman wearing tefillin is integral to the general concept of Jewish religious clothing, the presence of this picture can be construed as WP:POINTy. Note that in the appropriate articles, Women of the Wall and Tefillin, the picture is present, notwithstanding the discomfort it may cause Wikipedians. It is my opinion that it is appropriate in an article like Tefillin, where the contribution outweighs the caused concern so the benefit outweighs the cost. It is not appropriate here, where its contribution is miniscule—actually adding to the imbalance of the article's distribution of images—and thus the discomfort outweighs since there are as good or better images of Womem's Jewish religious clothing that are not Tefillin. Here, the cost outweighs the benefit. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Several images has been removed during the rfc , it's not ideal, but what can you do. IMO, declaring tefillin not clothing is impractical, where else would you mention it in the Judaism-article if not under clothing? Perhaps we should do a "what images should the article include" rfc instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Simple. You mention it in the article Tefillin where this picture already exists. -- Avi (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If this picture is already in the tefillin article, then we emphatically don't need it here too. Debresser (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could remove the mention of tefillin from the Judaism-article, but I don't think it's a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove it from the Judaism article, but from this article, since it's not clothing as many have mentioned. Sir Joseph 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph Precisely. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Please do not takes arguments to absurds. That does not help the discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I did that, if you mean my comment on Avi's "simple", but people think differently. I also think many readers would expect to see something about tefillin in an article with the name Jewish religious clothing, it gives (me) the impression of being strangely close to clothing. Anyway, it could be moved to the see also section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This article shouldn't cover tefillin in such a way that implies they are considered clothing by Jewish tradition or law, because they aren't. But incidental mentions of tefillin are acceptable and maybe even unavoidable considering that our tradition dictates they be worn at the same time as the tallit six days a week. If anything, this article should specifically call out tefillin as objects that are worn but nevertheless fall outside of the Jewish concept of clothing, so as to remove any doubt for the average reader, who might otherwise mistake them for a form of clothing or jewelry. Usually on Misplaced Pages, secondary sources prevail, but most secondary sources (perhaps wisely) avoid taking a stand on this question (though I notice that Britannica's Phylactery article is referenced both in "ceremonial object" and "religious dress"). As to other questions of image selection and balance, I'm not sure a full RfC would be helpful as the issue is too broad and difficult to funnel into a single outcome, but an ongoing, collaborative effort to curate high-quality, representative images for the article is very much needed. Ibadibam (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a small article. Two, three images are all this article should have, see WP:GALLERY, WP:NOTGALLERY, and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE ("strive for variety"). Debresser (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed

Please notice that I removed the image for a completely different reason, which is not the subject of the Rfc and is completely indifferent to the result of the Rfc: we had three pictures of women, and only one of men. In addition, the one of men already shows a tallit, and tefillin is not clothing, so this pictures was utterly superfluous. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add to your comments in the RfC that's fine, but you must stop prolonging the edit war that led to the RfC. Ibadibam (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have commented on the Rfc. The thing is that the Rfc is only about the question whether the picture is appropriate or not. I removed it for another reason. It is simply superfluous, moreover, having three pictures of women and only one of men is unbalanced. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed another picture of a woman in the mean time, to make the article more balanced. IMHO the other picture is inferior to the one I removed now, but since there is an Rfc about it in the mean time we can let it stay,and then replace it later. Which I will do, because, as I explained above, the Rfc do not get to decide if the picture must be in this article, only if it is appropriate. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Section Jewish vs. gentile customs

As the article is currently written, Rabbi Joseph Colon is the only authority on this matter. Maybe he is, but it looks a little odd. Also, per WP:AGEMATTERS, newer secondary sources is desirable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree and obviously he is not the only authority. This section gives undue weight to Colon. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, honestly, I do not know what you see "odd" about citing the works of Rabbi Joseph Colon, since, after all, the contents of this article are about Jewish religious clothing, and of all exponents on Jewish law, Colon was very lenient when it came to clothing types permitted to be worn.Davidbena (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Odd" from the WP-perspective is that he is the only voice in this section and a +500-years old primary source. Citing his works (at least via secondary sources) is not odd, especially not if his thoughts on this still has impact somewhere today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's just the thing. Rabbi Colon's words still have impact today. In fact, Jews rely on halachic teachings penned some 500 or more years before Rabbi Colon. It's, therefore, a case of misunderstanding on just how much the Jewish nation is still effected today by religious practices of the past. As for your allegation of Colon being a Primary Source, on the contrary, he is explaining the earlier teachings redacted in the Babylonian Talmud, which makes him a Secondary Source. By the way, this was one of the reasons why I was reluctant to go the route of an RfC, since it would attract many otherwise good editors who are unfamiliar with Jewish laws and practices.Davidbena (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Rabbi Colon may be a secondary source for some stuff, but the source text is still 500 years old. That makes it to some extent a primary source in WP-practice, it needs secondary interpretation to be useful to us. He is also not a source about his impact today. For WP purposes, a section called "Jewish vs. gentile customs" should have modern sources, and if Rabbi Colon has had an impact they will be discussing him. A reasonable title for the section as written would be "Rabbi Colon's views". As a reader, this section as written tells me nothing about why Rabbi Colon's views on this (or 15th century gentile physicians robes) is interesting and 100% dominating the sub-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The age of a work does not make it a Primary Source. As noted, Jewish practice goes back thousands of years, and Misplaced Pages is full of references to Halacha (Jewish practice) taken from the Shulhan Arukh and from Maimonides' Mishne Torah (Code of Jewish law). The section can, obviously, be expanded with more recent entries taken from modern-day Rabbis. This, however, should not detract from the relevance and importance of Rabbi Colon's work on this topic.Davidbena (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Also, the current 2 top images in the article are unclear on what Jewish religious clothing the people are wearing. Dito the bottom 2 images. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It is probably not the images that are unclear, rather the lack of a to-the-point descriptive caption. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I added to the caption. Please feel free to improve. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What Jewish religious clothing are Shuli Mualem and the Yemenite women wearing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The title of this article is wrong (in relation to actual contents). Perhaps it should be Traditional garb worn by Orthodox Jews. Head covering (men and women) is driven by religion, but the garment/wig/hat has no religious significance in and of itself. The only thing here that is religious is the Talit & tzitzit. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

How about trying to make it Judaism and clothing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You will get a page filled with Jewish halacha on clothing, mixing of threads (shatnez), and so on. Most Jews wear "normal" clothes of the culture they are in. Some traditional and Orthodox communities do not.Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That could be a decent article, an expansion of Judaism#Religious_clothing (which mentions the above disputed tefillin). There's probably sources for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You are free to submit a RfC about a change of page title, but I would be opposed to such a change.The present title, in my view, is appropriate, although the article can be expanded to better explain the customs involved in Jewish religious dress codes (mores and manners). Why should anyone, in the first place, try to promote the change of a new title only to accommodate an image that clearly runs contradictory to the article's general theme and scope of inquiry?Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Way to early for an rfc, the notion/idea/stray thought is only a few hours old (and there's always WP:BOLD). Why do you think I am trying to promote the change of a new title only to accommodate an image that clearly runs contradictory to the article's general theme and scope of inquiry? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I had our friend User:Icewhiz in mind; not you.Davidbena (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Your indentation indicated you were replying to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. If you agreed with Icewhiz, then it could have also been taken as a reply to you.Davidbena (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Cullen's remark

This article is not called Haredi religious clothing but ought to represent Jewish religious clothing all the way back to the high priests

That's very sensible. Since whatever I add will like, from past experience, be torn to pieces or edited out, may I just suggest one start with the garb of high priests in the temple. There is a fascinating essay on this to be found in Orit Shamir, ’The High Priest’s Garments of mixed wool and linen (sha’atnez) compared to archaeological textiles found in the Land of Israel,’ in Cecilie Brøns, Marie-Louise Nosch(eds.), Textiles and Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxbow Books 2017. Good place to start after an historical overview.

Brauer is too specific to be in anything but a footnote, since origins of blue etc., should be noted, but not instances centuries later. And in any case, to judge by the remark that, 'Blaue oder gelbe Bänder beziehungsweise Stoffe sollten getragen werden, um eine optische Unterscheidung zu Muslimen zu gewährleisten,' at de:Geschichte des Judentums im Jemen, it's not apparently that straightforward. History never is. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The high priest's clothes are only for the high priest. This article is about all Jews. Writing about the clothing of the high priest would be fine if this article were called "Religious clothing in Judaism", but since it is "Jewish religious clothing" it should be about clothes that are for all Jews. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. Anything about a Jewish High Priest (clothing, or otherwise) should not be in this article, but rather in an article that speaks specifically about the Jewish High Priest.Davidbena (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If we do, we should not neglect the lesser-known High Priest's Backpack. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So much lesser known that even I have never heard about it. Seems like the artist sought a compromise between painting the priests from the back without loosing the opportunity to paint the famous breastplate. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol!Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, neither Moses nor Joshua were priests, so that painting apparently makes more than one mistake... Debresser (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, it seems we managed to agree on something: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_November_15#Breastplate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Btw, if you guys haven't seen this you should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is entitled 'Jewish religious clothing'. The article is about, as Debresser remarks, all Jews. Since the high priests of the Temple were, please note, Jews, and dressed for the religious occasion there in a specific manner (8 items), their dress should be included, by commonsense, not to speak of logic and semantic analysis,

To write 'The high priest's clothes are only for the high priest. This article is about all Jews,' assumes that religious clothes not worn by all Jews (male and female) are to be excluded. This is nonsense. It would mean one could not document the wearing of blue or yellow garb/mark among Yemeni Jews, because that is not worn by all Jews. Come on, for fuck's sake. Logic please.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, try to be civil, secondly, the High Priest, is one Jew. We don't need to include what ONE JEW wears into an article about religious clothing for Jews as a whole, and that is not the same as blue or yellow garb and the distinction between Yemeni or male/female or Haredi or Modern Orthodox. That is not the scope of this article. Sir Joseph 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Hilarious, albeit a tad off-topic. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani One more instance of such language from you anywhere near me, and you are back to WP:AE, where I am sure this time no self-imposed editing hiatus will save you from a permanent ban or block. And while you're being a good fellow, try not to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. I do make some valid points sometimes. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. Nothing in your objection, or in your reverts, bore, for me, any semblance of close and careful judgement. What other editors do with the article is none of my business, naturally. When one read a comment by people like myself, by all means if one feels that urgent need, exercise the maximum suspicion about obscure ulterior motives but, that duly done, try to suspend the POV noise effect one may think buzzes in some subtext, and evaluate what is suggested by logical construal and regard for the sources adduced. The scope of this article is determined by the choice of language used to define it. See Religious clothing for the general principle. There is an imposing anthropology of clothing and its symbolism, and I guess it ain't gunna be used here. The principle is:-

'Clothing and costume identified from afar those whose power originated in the alter, sword, and ledger . . .For leaders clothes reliably enforced hierarchical order. The priestly class, whether Christian clergy, Jewish rabbis, or Muslim ulema (religious scholars and functionaries), wore clothing to distinguish thedm from laypeople.' Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Linda Gale Jones (eds.),Handbook to Life in the Medieval World, Vol. 3 p.826 Infobase Publishing, 2009 978-1-438-10907-7

What the article title means, unambiguously is that all clothes used by Jews in a religious context, for that religious purpose, come within the ambit and purview of the article. One cannot distort the obvious meaning of that phrase, and say it excludes some Jewish religious dress. By all means, change the title as Bus stop suggests. But as the title stands, there is no principled reason for excluding the habits of a High Priest on those grounds. Since whatever I add to the article will be reverted, it's pointless my editing it, but please note that any serious editor could easily ramp this up to 50k in a few days given the mass of information out there. What is the editing so far? Reverts, and talk page blathering. No work. No mention, even in the issue of female clothing (and I side with Avi here re image balance), of Deuteronomy, 2:5; no mention of how, wonderfully, an angelic power demands of a person that they dress in finery, something which, to the shame of other Abrahamic cultures, gave biblical backing to what Norbert Elias (himself a scion of a textile producer) called one of the seminal features of the civilizing process. How fucking boring this will languish on to remain, a dull list of familiar terms, void of colour, tinctures of historical anecdote or the web and woof of Jewish religious fashion down the ages and across the global spectrum. Well, if the consensus here is that the article must be minimalist and tedious, by all means . . .I'm not going to bore myself trying to help here. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman image

Joe Lieberman is a religious Jew. I've added this image of Joe Lieberman meeting President Ronald Reagan. It is illustrative of Jewish religious clothing. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. He's not wearing anything "Jewish" in that picture. He's wearing a business suit meeting the President. Nothing inherently Jewish in the picture. Sir Joseph 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you do want Joe's pictures, I found some that might be copyrighted, but they are of him and of McCain, at the Western Wall that might be appropriate. Sir Joseph 18:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I was about to do the same thing and for the same reason. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• From where are either of you deriving that certain items qualify as religious and certain other items do not qualify as religious? I have reverted. Joe Lieberman is a religious Jew. If he has dressed himself with deliberation then his clothing is religious in accordance with the subject area of this article. The identity of clothing in this instance would follow from the identity of the individual wearing the clothing. Religious Jews commonly wear business suits to synagogue or for other religious functions such as Shabbos and Jewish weddings. If the person is religious then the clothing of that person is Jewish religious clothing. This is not to say that there are no standards as to what constitutes Jewish religious clothing. But the standards are not the stereotypically strict standards which might maintain that only a Tallit is an item of Jewish religious clothing. Some much more casual items are commonly encountered in Jewish religious settings, especially among the more liberal branches of Judaism. The lede of our article is saying "Jewish religious clothing has been influenced by Biblical commandments, modesty requirements, and the contemporary styles of clothing worn in the many societies in which Jews have lived". Do you know that Lieberman is not wearing Tzitzit tucked into his pants? Do you know that his suit is in violation of Shatnez? Obviously "modesty requirements" are being met. You have no reason whatsoever to reject the clothing seen in the image as not being religious. Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• And I reverted again. There is nothing in the picture to show what clothing is distinctive and Jewish. Please discuss on the talk page before reverting again. If you really want an image of Joe, then find one of him in distinctive Jewish religious clothing. Him in common business attire is not appropriate. If you find an image of him with tzitzis, then that would be appropriate, but we can't show a picture of him in a suit and then say there's tzitzis underneath. Do you know that Lieberman is wearing tzitzis? Do you know his shatnes status? Sir Joseph 19:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• "There is nothing in the picture to show what clothing is distinctive and Jewish." Nor need there be. Religious Jews wear religious Jewish clothing, axiomatically. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• So show a picture of Hanes underwear. Sir Joseph 19:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Do you know what Tzniut is? There would be no reason constructive to this article to depict "Hanes underwear", or at least none that I can think of. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Then what's the purpose of Joe Lieberman in a business suit? Sir Joseph 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• Low-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class fashion articles
• Low-importance fashion articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Jewish culture articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish culture articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment