Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 16 July 2004 (→Where is the bias?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Best wishes. Keep me posted. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Aim and scope

Crossposted from IZAK's talk page:

The aim of the project has not yet clearly been elucidated. However, my past experience with Wikiproject "Clinical medicine" is:

• When experienced editors exchange information, the quality of articles goes up due to coordination
• Articles may be announced for peer review or floated for comments
• Standards (such as Hebrew pronunciation!!) can be agreed upon
• It makes edit wars briefer and less damaging
• It helps in coordinated efforts against vandalism
• Editors who are particularily knowledgable or have access to resources can do quick checks on facts.

I think a Wikiproject would be a massive step in the right direction. At least it will offer some unity in the otherwise very much fragmented approach to Judaism articles on Misplaced Pages (although IZAK's work on categorisation has brought a lot of structure). JFW | T@lk 15:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where is the bias?

The main page proclaims:

"The current viewpoint of articles tends towards a Conservadox (Liberal Modern Orthodox) point of view. Partially this is because other points of view find it more difficult to discuss all topics. However, this point of view is quite biased against more Orthodox viewpoints and possible against more liberal viewpoints as well."

I don't see the bias. We are following NPOV rules in all of our articles. As long as we continue to do so, we will be fine. All of our articles may be seen as being biased towards Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, due to the fact that the intellectual leaders of these movements have policies similar to NPOV rules. In contrast, most ultra-Orthodox Jews, (Hasidic and Non-Hasidic) are virtulently anti-historical, and view all historical research as anti-Semitic and heretical. But that is always a complaint made by fundamentalists about all non-religious encyclopedias. Misplaced Pages has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Muslims as being biased against their interpretation of Islam; Misplaced Pages has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Jews as being biased against their interpretation of Judaism; and Misplaced Pages has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Christians as being biased against their interpretation of Christianity. What they offer instead is a total violation of NPOV methodology. Their objections merely prove that the historical survery, NPOV style of writing which we currently have in our articles is the correct one to have. RK 13:37, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts, exactly!--Josiah 16:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RK, the reason for this is that only recently some avowed Haredim have joined the project. And frankly, there is a fair bit of bias when anthropological or revisionist research on Judaism is taken without a pinch of salt. Indeed, historical research is seen as heretical because the inevitable conclusion of such research is something that clashes with the Jewish principles of faith. Some faith is irreconcileable with science, especially when the science is somewhat subjective in itself, almost pathetically rejecting classical Jewish sources as proof because they happen to be religious sources. Scrupulous adherence to NPOV should iron out the differences, but I do believe there's a fair bit of mending to do. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once you imply that you vie scientists and archaeologists as heretics, you show endanger your ability to work on this project. I still think you two fail to understand the point of thi encyclopedia project. This is not a religious Jewish encyclopedia, and none of our particles follow an orthodox Jewish point of view. Similarly, this is not a not a religious Christian or Muslim encyclopedia. No religion has the right to make sure that they agre with our articles. Rather, Misplaced Pages is a non-religious encyclopedia which states all known facts in accord with our NPOV policy. If a certain believes X, we say that According to Orthodox Jews, X is true, but according to other groups, Y is true, and according to the nearly unanimous findings of modern science, Z is true. That is all that the adherents of any religion can hope for. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Insisting that the current archeological/anthropological/sociological view of Jews, Judaism, Torah, Jewish history, etc. is "fact" and therefore NPOV is a grave misunderstanding of both the meaning of the word "fact", and the intent of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Stating that "a, b, and c are the views of archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists while x, y, and z are the traditional Jewish views" is NPOV. However, I've already had to edit a number of articles on Jewish-related topics (some of which you were heavily involved in creating or editing to begin with) which say things like "Jews used to believe x, y, and z, but archeologists/anthropologists/sociologists have proved them wrong because of a, b, and c." This violates NPOV in all sorts of ways, is endemic in many of the less scrutinized articles on Jewish related topics, and I believe this is what JDwolff was referring to. Jayjg 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of the term "fundamentalist"

To equate Orthodox Jews with Christian or Islamic fundamentalists is appalling, misleading, disgusting and insulting, particularly since a number of people present here may be Orthodox and intellectually academic at the same time. Dr. de Wolff JFW for one is both a competent medical doctor and an Orthodox Jew and is rational and capable of NPOV to the hilt in spite of his Orthodoxy, and has accordingly been chosen by Misplaced Pages as an admin. Please apologize to him now! IZAK 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Izak, no one may work on any Misplaced Pages article unless they adhere to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which demands that we all adhere to scholarly modes of discussion. The word fundamentalist has a very specific and technical meaning in the study of religions, and it is this specific, technical meaning that we use this word. Orthodox Judaism, by definition, is a fundamentalist religious denomimation. All of our articles state this. Please see the Misplaced Pages article on this topic so you can lanr how and why this word is used. The word fundamentalist is not an ad homenim attack nor an insult, and we can not rewrite our entire encyclopedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand this. RK 21:36, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Your citation "proves" nothing. One paragraph on a Misplaced Pages page about what Orthodox Jews "believe" does not give you the right to make sweeping judgments or cast aspersions on the Wikipedian capabilities of Jews, who may be Orthodox, to espouse a NPOV. Are you saying that only non-Orthodox Jews are capable of being Wikipedians? Probably you wouldn't mind it, unfortuantely for you Misplaced Pages is far too broad a tabula rasa for anyone to dominate it, INCLUDING non-Orthodox fundamentalists. Have you not heard of the phrases "Fanatical Reformers" or "Extreme Secularists" or "Dyed in the wool Conservatives" or "Confused Reconstructionists" are they also not FUNDAMENTALISTS too ??? IZAK 06:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, (A) You must stop your ad homenim attacks. That is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages etiqutte. (B) My citation does prove something...the problem is that you admit that you are essentially ignorant of the real world reading on this issue. In the real world, scholars of religion use the word "fundamentalism" in this way. Any claim to the contrary is unconnected with reality. If you cannot handle using the English langauge properly, without imaginging slander being hurled against you, then you are not yet ready to work on these articles. Please approach this project as a scholar of religion, and learn the terminology.

RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

The word fundamentalism has become so utterly loaded I would abstain from using it in any context. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What can we say? This is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. Outside of Orthodoxy, scholars of religion use the word in this way. If your religious beliefs prevent you from using the same technical religious terminology that everyone else uses, then you may not yet be ready to work on these articles. Izak already is having serious problems, seeing these words as personal atacks against him and his religion, even though he has repeatedly been told otherwise. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Even the word "Jew" has become utterly loaded with negativ context; but we do not stop using the word "Jew". Instead, we educate readers by explaining what it really means. RK

Removing Orthodox Judaism from "Fundamentalism"

With all due respect, the term "fundamentalist" remains a highly charged pejorative as it is associated with present-day Terrorism in most rational people's minds, and it is a blight and stain on the good name of any segment of Orthodox Judaism to be associated with that ugly word. Peace Now is no less a fundamentalism movement than anything "Orthodox". I put forth a motion that (certainly as self-respecting Jews) all efforts be made to extract the Orthodox Judaism paragraph from the fundamentalism article ASAP as it is an unambiguous anti-Semitic slur. IZAK 07:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic, but I'm not too impressed with its inclusion either. As far as I can see, the article basically says "Orthodox Judaism is different from other fundamentalist groups in all these ways, but it's still fundamentalist." Jayjg 16:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, and this is the basic difference between it and all the other Jewish denominations. Tos ay anything less would be Orthodox apologetics to hide this highly significant difference. Further, it is not an ugly word. We cannot rewrite all of Misplaced Pages to appease the fears of people who don't understand what the word means. Our job is to educate...not to rewrite the dictionary in order to appease fundamentalist Jews, Christians or Muslims. And please remember that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism. Misplaced Pages is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. We also have articles on all religions, and use the term "fundamentalist" there as well. All of the Orthodox POVs here aboput not using this word have already been seen here on Misplaced Pages from fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. And all have been rejected. We need to follow the same policy for all topics; we can't have special exception for the adherents of one religion. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you believe Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, but if it's true the article needs to explain why that is so. So far it seems to mostly contain handwaving of the "fundamentalists are Scriptural literalists, Orthodox Judaism is not Scripturally literalist, but it's still fundamentalist" kind. Jayjg 15:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The word "fundamentalism" is defined by Webster's as meaning "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Regardless of whether you view Orthodoxy as a "movement", by that definition Orthodoxy is fundamentalist. And, for the record, I would also say that Karaite Judaism could be labeled as such also.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"fundamentalist" is generally only associated with terrorism when involving Muslims.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe some people in the general public believe that, but that is not correct. Most Muslims are fundamentalist, yet most Muslims are not terrorist. Our job is to get people to read the articles and become educated. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There are many different ways of pronouncing Hebrew words. It seems that most people want to standardize on the Sefardi pronunciation. There is a reason not to use that pronunciation and that is because most of the people using it are really ashkenazim and they switched to a sefardi pronunciation for reasons that were not necessarily in accordance with Halacha.

Yet, this dialect is now the most commonly used, and most outside readers will get increasingly confused if multiple spellings are given. Also, many people will pray in an older dialect while using "Israeli" pronunciation in daily parlance for ease of understanding. I vote to retain the status quo, and certainly to not start making long lists of dialectical alternatives. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The spelling is also not what most Jews would use, but seems to have been pushed towards some sort of quasi-scholarly spelling, in particular in the use of "kh" for "chaf" and "h" for "chet". This too is abandoned in a pinch; see for example the article on what Jews would term the "Shulchan Aruch", as you yourself have pointed out. What should the standard be? Jayjg 17:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mesorah Publications had the encountered the same dilemna, and decided to use a mixture, IIRC. --Josiah 02:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I've read about it in one of their introductions. I would like their rendering to be the default. --Ezra Wax 17:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with Ezra Wax! The Artscroll and Mesorah Publications form of pronunciation is horrible; they have been pushing this confusing hybrid for 30 years, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the rest of the Jewish community. Scholars of Judaism do not use this form of transliteration; neither do most other Orthodox Jews, neither do any non-Orthodox Jews. We should generally use the Sephardic transliteration, as this is what most Hebrew speakers use. Even ultra-Orthodox Jews who normally use the Ashkenazi pronunciation while praying can and do switch to the more commonly used Sephardi pronunciation on other occasions. RK 21:42, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you think only "ultra-Orthodox" Jews use Ashkenazi pronunciations, but that idea is nowhere near reality. And I must point out again, Modern Israeli and Sephardi are different pronunciations. Jayjg 07:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with RK in this regard. The ArtScroll is too much of a "mishgabibel" especially now with their interliniar transliterations driving people crazy. I vote we stick with "standard" Israeli Hebrew as it is basically the spoken language of close to half the world's Jews, even the Charedim in Israel speak Israeli (and NOT "Ashkenazi" Hebrew). What people do when they pray, whether they confuse themselves with Artscroll, mumble in English, fly in Ashkenazik, Sefardik or Chasidik is a personal matter relating to worship and has nothing to do with Hebrew as a SPOKEN and written i.e. LIVING language today. Your avergae (Jewish) person wants to know Israeli Hebrew and not be confused with other variants. So let's not add to that confusion on Misplaced Pages. IZAK 07:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I'm just saying that if people, as a whole, can't agree to go with Artscroll's mess. Personally, I'd say sephardic also.--Josiah 06:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• At this point in time User Gilgamesh and User Mustafaa are on a spree creating massive havoc as they have undertaken to edit any Hebrew/Jewish/Israeli article and insert (at least) four varieties of "Hebrew", often including "Tiberian", "Yemenite", with "Ashkenazi", and anything else they can squeeze in. Why does Hebrew suffer from this on Misplaced Pages? Does, say, every article in English start of with the "American", "British", "Australian", ad nauseum way of pronouncing words??? Is Misplaced Pages the place for emphasis on phonetics, accents, pronounciations etc of words??? They should be encouraged to stop before they cause immense chaos and confusion. They even attempted to down-grade modern Israeli (Sephardic) Hebrew (spoken by almost half of world Jewry today), as just another "POV" brand of Hebrew no different to mysterious and defunct "Moabite, Edomite and Ammonite". This is what you call "chutzpah". IZAK 15:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find what they are doing to be quite odd. However, I must point out that modern Israeli Hebrew is not Sepharadi. Jayjg 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Ok then, be pedantic, it's "sorta Sefardi" then, my point is that its "Baruch" for example, is closer to Sefardi than the Chasidik "Booreech" or Ashkenazi "Bawrooch". But I do not mean to be pedantic. I will tell you what they are up to: They are "shechting" the "Lashon HaKodesh" and making it into "Hebrew" alphabet "fruit soup" of no use to anyone really, and thereby stop the inroads of standard Israeli Hebrew as a common user-friendly Hebrew language. IZAK 17:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, on the request of Jdfwolff (on the issue of page style) and Jallan (on the issue of scientific transliteration), I went through hundreds of pages I had previously edited for Hebrew linguistics, and in nearly all cases eliminated all but two transliterations: Tiberian Hebrew and Standard Hebrew. Jallan had issue to exact scientific transliterations, so I started using scientific Unicode standards for both. Additional entries for Samaritan Hebrew, Arabic and Septuagint Greek are only added if the topic is relevant to Samaritans, Arabs, Muslims, Christian scholars, etc. The most affected article by far is List of Hebrew names — it has been given a magnificent overhaul in these regards. No more millions of alternate spellings unless they represent true variants with true phonemic differences in the same language. I've only done my best to respect and accommodate every POV on this very complex subject. I have already long since restored Standard Hebrew to the Hebrew language article. But the truth of the matter is, although Hebrew need not be presented as an unending soup in the articles, it is a soup in real life, and historically. And trailing off to categories and other articles, every flavor of soup has the right to be represented in parity with other flavors. - Gilgamesh 23:42, 14 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, I'm personally very happy with the present arrangement. There is, indeed, a very big Shabbos chicken soup of Hebrew dialects, and I feel we should settle for an "Israeli Modern Hebrew" transcription, augmented by Tiberian Hebrew if you feel this adds anything.

As for other transcriptions, as long as Shabbos, Shabbes and Shabbas redirect to Shabbat there is no real problem at all. The vast majority of readers will not expect to see their dialect represented.

I'm a Dutch Ashkenazi, and (as I told you before) I use a dialect that is a hybrid between Western Ashkenazi and Portugese Hebrew. The word Olam (world) becomes . Yet it is - IMHO - completely irrelevant to have a fringe dialect represented here. JFW | T@lk 17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My question is, why "Tiberian Hebrew" relevant? Who speaks this language, or uses it in any meaningful way? Jayjg 17:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's relevant to linguistic scholars and historians. Tiberian Hebrew is an especially important historical linguistic study because the vast majority of Hebrew liturgical dialects (including the Sephardic dialect from which Standard Hebrew arose) evolved from the standardized form of Hebrew drafted at Tiberias in the 8th century C.E. It's also been a basis from which the Hebrew Bible has been translated into various other languages, particularly during the Reformation when some Christians lost faith in the Latin Vulgate Bible, and questioned the wisdom of depending on a translation of a translation of a translation at all when they could use the original. Hebrew has a great many students of history as well, as it has been one of the single most influential languages shaping Jewry and Christendom, and both Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization. And Hebrew studies — while I think they deserve to be and will always be a part of Jewish study — will also always be a part of non-Jewish study of linguistics, history, culture and theology. As such, everyone in Abrahamic religion has a stake in Hebrew linguistic scholarship, whether it be practicing Jews like the respected company here, or Christians like me, or Muslims like Mustafaa, or even the Druze or the Baha'i. It's something we can all share, together. :) - Gilgamesh 22:44, 15 July 2004 (UTC)

But why is the pronunciation of various words )(e.g. Kabbalah) relevant in "Tiberian Hebrew", particularly as those words might not have ever even been used in "Tiberian Hebrew"? Jayjg 05:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One important thing I forgot to mention - Tiberian Hebrew is the oldest standard of Hebrew to have its vowels and consonants completely distinguished and standardized. It is of significant importance to linguistic study and comparative Canaanite linguistics and Semitic linguistics as a whole. Hebrew isn't the monopoly of a single religious group or ethnicity. It belongs to everyone. This really has nothing to do with how Hebrew is used in Judaism nor Jewry. Misplaced Pages is a place of dispassionate secular science without endorsement of a single culture nor religion. And I am here as a scientist in the field of linguistics. - Gilgamesh 06:17 July 2004 (UTC)

Um, ok, but could you please answer my question now? Is it your intention to insert into Misplaced Pages articles the "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciation for words which never existed in "Tiberian Hebrew" to begin with? Jayjg 06:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, I misunderstood the question. Well, I suppose it doesn't have anything to do with Tiberian Hebrew, except perhaps that Tiberian represents the origin of the liturgical dialects. The relevant question here would be, did non-Sephardi Qabbalists pronounce the word in Sephardic Hebrew or in their own dialects? For example, did any Ashkenazim pronounce it Kabboloh? If the answer is no, then I suppose Tiberian is not relevant to that issue. But if the answer is yes, then Tiberian would be a good older phonemic representation of Hebrew that unites the etymological differences between the dialects, which are, afterall, dialects of Tiberian Hebrew. Jdfwolff told me, afterall, that there are simply too many dialects to represent them all, so representing the keystone standard and the modern standard at the same time seems like an equitable compromise. - Gilgamesh 07:06, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

Regarding using a "keystone" standard, you seem to be saying that because Ashkenazi Jews pronounce it Kabboloh and Sepharadi Jews pronounce it Qabala that we therefore need to present instead its "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciation, even though the word might never have been used in "Tiberian Hebrew", and indeed the language (and in particular its pronunciation) is only a linguistic hypothesis to begin with. I recognize that there are a large number of Hebrew accents/dialects, but there are only 4 or 5 in common use today, and of those 1 or perhaps 2 are dominant in everyday usage. To say that we cannot present the dominant, or even common Hebrew pronunciations of words, but instead must present a hypothetical construct which no-one in real life uses, and which may never have been used, seems, at best, to be absurd to me. Jayjg 07:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree, Jayjg. I did try to include several dialects before, but Jdfwolff as an administrator admonished me not to. I trimmed it down to just two, and he told me it was acceptable to his recommended conventions. I guess we need to strike a bargain between detail and formatting, and Jdfwolff is okay with this, and so am I. Besides, merely the exact IPA pronunciation of Tiberian is subject to guessing; its phonemes are well-documented and not a source of conjecture in this case. That's why there's such a well-established scientific transliteration for the Tiberian form. This standard transliteration is provided in academic textbooks for scholarly Biblical Hebrew study, at least in universities. So, the main purpose of Tiberian Hebrew is not a description of pronunciation, but of phonemic detail. It has five clear short vowels and seven clear long vowels, and a separate transliterative form for every Hebrew consonant, including sāmeḵ and śîn. It is an elegant approach to presenting the phonemes of Hebrew words in the most detailed way available to scholars. Gilgamesh 7:49, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with just two, but "Tiberian Hebrew" simply doesn't make sense for most of these articles; in fact, it's a bizarre anachronism to write the "Tiberian Hebrew" pronunciations of words and concepts that were never spoken in "Tiberian Hebrew". Modern Israeli and Ashkenazi are the two most widely used dialects today; Sepharadi Hebrew is usually quite close to Modern Israeli, but where it differs from Modern Israeli it could be included as well. "Tiberian Hebrew" might be relevant for articles dealing with subjects upon which "Tiberian Jews" had something to say, but it doesn't belong anywhere else. And, to be frank, "Tiberian Hebrew" is in reality a dialect invented and used by a few hundred academics, and is not "mainstream" in any meaningful sense. It doesn't really belong anywhere except those academic publications, but regardless, in no articles does it make sense for "Tiberian Hebrew" to come first. Jayjg 15:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for fonts and white boxes that we've been seeing around lately, that's actual a separate issue dealing with a separate POV debate still going on over the forced use of specific fonts in Misplaced Pages's CSS. It's received many complaints precisely for the reason that it makes many Unicode characters undisplayable for normal visitors using Internet Explorer. I for one, when providing academic detail, consider this not to be my problem, and I continue to use mandated Unicode characters when it is the standard for an orthography. (Jallan threatened POV dispute if I didn't adhere to this. :P) Since it appears that popular opinion over the style sheets issue is resoundingly against forcing specific typefaces, I hope simply that common sense will prevail and that Misplaced Pages's style designers will yield control back to individual web browsers. I'm not going to compromise the Unicode. - Gilgamesh 7:49, 16 July 2004 (UTC)

• Gilgamesh: With all due respect, I think you are holding up or inserting the proverbial "red herring" by latching on to this "Tiberian Hebrew" gobbledigook, and thereby in effect sowing confusion and sadly NOT creating enlightenment. No-one but you and some obscure pedantic liguists know and care about the existence of "Tiberian" Hebrew, and we don't need it spreading itself like measles onto the faces of all Misplaced Pages articles with Hebrew words. I agree with User Jayjg, it is COMPLETELY UNnecessary to insert a reference to "Tiberian" Hebrew every time a Misplaced Pages article has Hebrew words in its introductions. To what lengths will this go... will an article on the Israel Defence Forces or the name of Ariel Sharon be subjected to Gilgamesh's obsession with pasting in "Tiberian" Hebrew? What a joke that will be and make Misplaced Pages look plain idiotic as no Israeli and modern Hebrew speakers, who just happen to account for close to half of present-day world Jewry, would take it seriously. (Unless of course Gilgamesh is on a "crusade" to re-indoctrinate the Jews with far-fetched theories that mean nothing in practical terms to Jews or anyone else.) In any case, the whole notion of having a few Hebrew words SPRINKLED into an ENGLISH language article is to give it some authenticity and relevancy which is best done by following the "KISS" ("Keep It Simple Stupid" ) rule, especially when Hebrew is an alien language to planet Earth's six billion inhabitants. So let's get rid of Gilgamesh's pedantic insertions and intrusions into the area of Hebraica on Misplaced Pages (his fonts are also messy and don't work a lot of the time, leaving gaps in words), unless they are within normal bounds of PRESENT-DAY modern Israeli Hebrew usage. If anything, it would make more sense to insert references to the still widely used (in prayers and Torah and Talmud learning) Ashkenazic Hebrew, but that too would be much too confusing were it to be done en masse if plastered and pasted every time a Hebrew word pops up in Misplaced Pages. So let's get a handle on this soon, before the mess will be too big to clean up quickly. IZAK 04:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK, if you're going to disagree with him, fine. I don't see a need for Tiberian either. But QUIT THE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.--Josiah 06:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Hebrew name

For article on Hebrew name User Gilgamesh and User Mustafaa are having a ball tearing up the turf. Using fonts and systems that just come up as "little boxes". It's a case of a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as they "decide" on their own the meanings of Hebrew language words from the Torah and Tanakh sometimes using little more than guess-work. IZAK 16:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outline of articles

Most articles seem to have the following parts:

• Introduction
  • Various synonyms of the title of the article
  • Domain of the term i.e. In Judaism ...
  • Short definition of term
• History
  • Ancient History
  • Recent History
  • Current Practice
• Treat according to denomination
  • Orthodox
  • Conservative
  • Reform
  • Other

Problems with this outline: Treatment according to history tends to emphasize that current practice is different than present practice. This emphasis tends to be an effort to promote the idea that laws change and therefore more conservative viewpoints are too conservative.

No, it doesn't promote the idea that more conservative ideas are too conservative. That is your interpretation of the facts. All it does is prove that history exists. Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews, however, wish to replace the historical point of view with their distorted view of Jewish history, one in which Abraha, wore a kipa, and Cain and Abel studied in a yeshiva. Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy demands that we study a religion's development in its historical context, which shows us that all religions and develop and change over time. Anyone who denies the existence of such change is probably so ignorant as to be useless to our project, and so biased as to be unable to conform to NPOV requirements. RK

On the other hand, it confirms the historicity of certain laws and customs when these are continued into daily practice. For example, mikvah mentions that "Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah". Etc. JFW | T@lk

Saying that "Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah" is problematic. Better would be to say, "Unfortunately many Jews have abandoned halacha and have stopped using a mikva."

Perhaps "While Orthodox Jews still use a mikvah, many Jews due to to laxity in observance, or rebellion against rabbinical authority, have ceased to do so." --Ezra Wax 17:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Unfortunately"? "Abandoned"? It is highly unlikely that these amazingly POV and normative words would last long on Misplaced Pages. Jayjg 02:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. It is also a serious violation of Misplaced Pages NPOV policy to promote any religions practices or beliefs. However, we can write that According to Orthodox and most Conservative rabbis it is unfortunate that many Jews have abandoned halacha and have stopped using the mikvah. Such a statement is in accord with the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. RK

Treatment according to denomination emphasizes that there are denominations and legitimizes them. This tends to be contrary to the view that denominations are mostly irrelevant and that there are those who are more particular about observance and those who are less so.

Yet, apart from Orthodoxy, the denominations seem to be quite comfortable in this split. Recognising the existance of these movements and their policies is troublesome from an Orthodox POV, but for the purposes of Misplaced Pages it seems to be the only tenable solution. JFW | T@lk

The point is that Orthodoxy is not a movement in the sense that it moved away from what was before. It was using established principles to react to a changing situation. As such it is not a movement. The other denominations might be movements, but they are not Judaism. The point is that the non-Orthodox want to legitimize themselves by calling themselves denominations.

See this is the problem. I totally disagree. Many historians have proved that Orthodox Judaism is a movement, and that it has moved away from what was once before. I can provide numerous references. It would be more accurate to say that Most Orthodox Jews believe that their beliefs and practices are the same as the beliefs and practices of previous generations, while some Orthodox Jews and most non-Orthodox Jews believe that even Orthodoxy has changed significantly in the last 200 years. RK 13:45, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

2 points to consider 1)On the opposite perspective, one could say that Orthodoxy wants to legitimize itself by saying that the Non-Orthodox are not denominations. 2) When some of the early Reform Jews classified themselves as "of Mosaic Persuasion" or "the religion of Moses", they were criticized even more for abandoning the use of "Judaism". 3) The entire issue of whether or not denominations are, or are not, legitimate is a theological one. I suggest the issue be dropped, since Misplaced Pages is not a place to debate theology. --Josiah 01:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The non-Orthodox movements would, in fact, state categorically that Orthodoxy today has indeed moved away from what it was before. I doubt you'll get any agreement on this outside of the Orthodox world. Jayjg 19:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject categories

If the project branches out endlessly it will have more trouble defining its subject matter and will attract more edit warring that is warranted. The secret of keeping this project succesful and viable is limiting its scope for the time being. JFW | T@lk

I agree with JFW here. What are everyone's thoughts on merging some of the categories together, if possible?--Josiah 02:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At this time the categories are both sufficiently broad enough yet are divided logically. How on Earth would one combine categories with over fifty articles with others of a similar nature? We are not dealing with morons, any person with average intelligence will be able to very quickly find whatever they need simply and efficiently with the present categories. A lot of thought, time and work has gone into the Category:Jews and Judaism. Who is to blame that Misplaced Pages contains thousands of Jewish-related articles? We have to work with what we've got. IZAK 19:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Topics That can use Templates

• Jewish Books

(See Category:Jewish texts)

• Rabbis (geonim, rishonim, acharonim)

(See Category:Rabbis)

• Halachos of Shabbos

(See Category:Jewish law and rituals)

• Prayers

(See Category:Jewish law and rituals)

• Holidays

(See Category:Jewish holy days)

• Time periods in Jewish History

(See Category:Jewish history)

• Masechtot and/or Sedarim of the Talmud

(See Category:Mishnah and Category:Talmud)

• Books of Tanach (Hebrew Bible) (this template is functional)

(See Category:Torah and Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh

• Jewish cities

I don't understand; what is a "Jewish city"? A city built by Jews? A city that has mostly Jews in it? A city in the State of Israel? All Misplaced Pages articles on cities should have the same format in all cases. RK 03:04, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with RK in this regard. It is better to just call them places or geography. Contextually in an article it will be understood to what extent they were or are "Jewish".

See:

• Category:Israel geography;
• Category:Torah places;
• Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places.

IZAK 06:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Bible

I would like to make a radical suggestion related to the above two points, and to the next one. Every culture and religion on WP has its its literature discussed objectively and fairly (hopefully), but nevertheless merits articles presenting it as part of that culture. In the case of Judaism and Christianity, however, because the canon is partially shared, there is a great deal of conflict, implied bias, and a deep sense that a meaningful picture is hard to paint within some of the articles. This is especially true for the biblical books.

I think most of us would agree that reading the Bible is two different "worlds" in the Jewish and Christian traditions. (I write this as someone who was and is involved in interfaith activities, including study groups. The meeting between the two worlds can be fascinating and meaningful, but they remain two different worlds.) Therefore, I suggest the following radical idea: That articles on the biblical books be parallel. I.e. one article on the history of Christian interpretation and study, another on the how the book was and is studied in the Jewish traditions. These articles need not be POV: A "Jewish" article, for instance, can and must, for instance, discuss how Christian exegesis influenced Jewish study, how Jewish study has been influenced by modern theories, etc. But there should still be to separate articles. How to give them titles would also take some thought. Do people agree with me?Dovi 20:08, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think the idea of two articles makes a lot of sense, each one linking to the other at the bottom. Jayjg 15:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jewish news box

What was that Jewish news box that appeared in the Jews and Judaism article? How is it maintained? Who decides what goes in it? Jayjg 15:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)