Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism: Difference between revisions

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Jews and banking

I would like to request input on two draft articles that I have been working on:

Yes, I understand that having an article titled Jews and banking sounds like an antisemitic canard and I am open to changing the title. However, I do think that there is an encyclopedic topic around the role of Jews and the emergence of modern banking. My interest in this topic was sparked by the disastrous attempt by Noleander to create an article titled Jews and money, subsequently retitled to Economic history of the Jews which has since been deleted via AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews). It has been widely recognized by participants in the AFD discussion that there were many problems with Noleander's initial attempt including overly broad scope which suggested a coatrack, poor organization of the article, injudicious selection of sources and misrepresentation of some of the sources. However, a number of editors (myself among them) felt that there were one or more encyclopedic topics covered. It was proposed here that some of the issues could be resolved by pulling out the encyclopedic topics and making articles about those specific topics. The two articles above represent my efforts to begin that process.

I would like to ask enlist the help of members of this project to review the entire text of these proposed articles as well as critique the article title.

I think the judicious selection of article titles is almost as important as article text because titles change much less frequently than article text does and the article title implies a scope that strongly influences what text is added and deleted from the article.

I am not too thrilled with the title "Jews and banking" as it still sounds antisemitic to me. I'm playing with "History of Jews in banking" but I'm open to other suggestions.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On cursory skimming of the opening paragraphs I think I like the approach you have taken. At the same time, I would strongly suggest you delay moving this article to the main namespace until Noleander's arbitration case has closed. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see less reliance on the ADL in debunking the antisemitic canards. Antisemites immediately dismiss anything the ADL says, and in any event scholarly sources would be best for this minefield of a topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh... I understand your point. It's just that the ADL stuff was easiest to find via Google. There are other sources available through Google Books but it's been heavy slogging to turn up the appropriate sources. Maybe other editors can provide better sources if and when this goes into article mainspace. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ask that you do think of another title, as I think your instincts regarding how the title would be perceived are correct. I am frankly more concerned on how anti-semites would perceive it (unfortunately, they are still a substantial group) than how Jews would.Mzk1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh... I'm still struggling with article topics and article scope. I decided for now to give up on History of Jews in American banking and just create an article titled History of investment banking in the United States. About 20-25% of that article is devoted to the Jewish part of the story. I expect that percentage will shrink to 10-15% over time. For now, my thinking is that it is sufficient for the German-Jewish part of the story to be presented in the overall context of this article and that we don't need an article that focuses on the Jewish part of the story.

However, I'm still struggling with Jews and banking. I really think there is an encyclopedic article here and this thesis is supported by the existence of reliable sources in the form of books on the subject of "Jews and money" by Gerald Krefetz and Abraham Foxman.

Especially given the recent ARBCOM case regarding Noleander, I want to step very carefully in this area. I think my proposed draft eliminates most, if not all, of the issues that were present in Noleander's failed attempt at an article on Jews and money. However, I'm concerned that moving my draft into a title like Jews and money or Jews and banking will set off tripwires unnecessarily. I am very much open to suggestions to changes in title or even changes in article scope. I am more interested in presenting the information and not interested in pushing any particular POV thesis (with, of course, the exception of debunking the antisemitic canard that there is/was an international Jewish conspiracy to control international finance).

In this regard, I've contemplated an article titled Jewish control of international finance (antisemitic canard) which would focus specifically on the canard, the facts and arguments that are used to promote it and the arguments used to debunk it. For example, I found it interesting that, after Jacob Schiff died in 1921, the Jewish presence in investment banks founded by German-Jewish immigrants diminished. There are sources who provide statistics indicating that Jews are barely present in banking throughout much of the 20th century. Most of the data I've seen relates to the U.S. banking industry but I also saw one reference making a similar point about the French banking industry. Does anybody have thoughts on the desirability/undesirability of creating such an article?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Antisemitic canards at Criticism of the Talmud

An editor has been arguing that Category:Antisemitic canards should be removed from the Criticism of the Talmud article. A discussion regarding this can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Talk:Criticism of the Talmud. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Passover Seder#possible copyright violation

Talk:Passover Seder#possible copyright violation Bus stop (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename discussion for Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods

The article Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was recently renamed to Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposal to rename it back to its original title. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, and comments may be left at Talk:Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods#Requested move. • Astynax ^talk 19:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok

Mesivta Birkas Yitzchok needs some serious cleanup, sourcing and wikifying. Any help would be appreciated.Nerguy (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a shot. It seems copy-pasted from the school web site. Joe407 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Nerguy (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic Judaism" - Prod?

There has just arisen a broad-based attempt by a user to slant various articles to match the philosophy of a new denomination connected with a school in Toronto. The denomination claims to be reconstruction (N.P.I.) of the original Judaism. No problem there, but the author is not only writing POV, but slanting writing about other denominations (Orthodoxy, to be specific) to match. (See my revert in Jewish religious movements; there is nothing wrong with the comment on Orthodoxy, but it clearly is there to support the conclusion of the article, where he gives his denomination as an alternative.)

The basic article is Classic Judaism; nothing wrong with his describing his denomination and even slanting a bit, but the article is so POV/COI (particularly with the implications about current Orthodoxy) that I am wondering if it should be deleted. However, I am not familiar with the criteria for such a move or better alternatives.Mzk1 (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just AfD'ed it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Judaism. Joe407 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

Please see my comments on the Talk page there under "Noah". I suggest that "Olive branch" is not part of Judaism. Marshall46 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahash

I think it would be a very good idea for knowledgeable members of this project to take a look at Tahash. I'll be frank; the reason I ask this is because the article has had hundreds of edits by an editor who has recently said that he's leaving Wikipedia in a huff, mainly because he's not getting his way at Ark of the Covenant and who has some very odd ideas about sourcing, including using Conservapedia as a source]. I'll be honest; there's so much scattered crap at the article, I'm more than half tempted to revert it to the state it was in before his first edit there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good number of editors have tried their (our) best at Tahash. The editor in question has a real problem with WP:OWN. He has some good content but is difficult to impossible to work with. I've dropped the article from my watchlist in frustration as may have others. If you are willing to give it a shot I'll join you but I'm short on patience for problems of WP:OWN. Joe407 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the editor in question seems to have left in a fit of pique, so there may be hope for the article, I made two small edits, then took a longer look at the article and concluded that the sort of minor revisions I was making weren't going to help much. The article is about 75,000 bytes long right now. (It has been as high as 100,000) I figure that's about 70,000 bytes too long. Take out all the irrelevant speculative nonsense, like disputes about the dates for Moses, that have nothing to do with tahash, and we'll probably be in about the right neighborhood. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 sources to support that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish?

The attention of others should be brought to this matter. Should a reliable source referring to Nikki Yanofsky as a "Jewish artist" be removed as here? I have restored that source here. Would 2 sources be an excessive amount of sources to support that Yanofsky is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone else weigh in, because it is not my aim to edit war here (Yworo), here (Bus stop), here (Yworo), here (Bus stop) & here (Griswaldo). Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source, which uses the adjective "Jewish" to describe her does not actually verify the text in the entry, which says that she was raised by a "close-knit Jewish family," but another source, already in the entry does. Why do you keep on adding back? It is not needed. Leave it be.Griswaldo (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo—the source says: "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song", and "Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky's career continues to blossom." What do you mean by "verify"? The Jewish Tribune (Canada) is a reliable source. "Jewish artist" means the artist is Jewish. Why would someone be referred to as a "Jewish jazz sensation" if they were not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop why are you asking questions that I have already answered. The entry does not say that she "is Jewish" it says she was raised in a Jewish family. The references you cite here don't say that she was raised in a Jewish family but refer to her as Jewish. We have a source being used in the entry that clearly states what the entry does. Case closed. Move onto something more productive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo—I find you stating here that it would constitute "obsessive ethno-tagging" for our article to state that Nikki Yanofsky was Jewish. Do you still stand by that? I find that our two sources—here and here—support quite appropriately, even by our more stringent WP:BLP standards, that Yanofsky is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is a minor who has made no statement about her own identity being Jewish (ethnically or religiously). This is a BLP issue. And yes you do seem to be obsessive about your ethno-tagging. I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo—you say that she "has made no statement about her own identity being Jewish"

Nor need she. No policy says that "self-identification" is necessary for placement of this material in the body of an article. Such assertions have to be reliably sourced, which this material is.

You may be referring to the policy found at WP:BLPCAT.

"Self-identification" is required for placement in Categories. It is also required for placement on Lists, Navigation Templates, and Infobox statements. I derive that from this wording found at WP:BLPCAT: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

No policy exists to require "self-identification" for placement of such material in the body of an article. But if you feel that such policy exists will you please bring it to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, a simple question. Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith? These are two different questions, and need to be considered as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, consensus is against you. I have certainly not said personally that there is a clear BLP policy prohibiting what you want to do. Yet you do realize there is no policy saying it needs to be done either, or that it is wrong for consensus to go against your wishes on this. Let it go.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo—Consensus is not all that matters. At WP:VOTE I find "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus.

Here you say "Leave it be"

Here you say "Case closed. Move onto something more productive."

Here you say "I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you."

Here you say "Case closed. Move on."

At WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I find "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

Do I not detect a bit of impatience in your dialogue with the rational process of collaborative article creation?

You say immediately above "Let it go."

Let what go? You say above "This is a BLP issue. And yes you do seem to be obsessive about your ethno-tagging. I suggest taking a break from it and doing something else. It would be much more relaxing and productive for you.'

Let me respond to that. I would love to address other topics on Wikipedia. Would doing so be more "relaxing" for me? Probably so. But I find myself repeatedly up against the group of editors, of which you are a part, who insist that a Jew can't be called a Jew on Wikipedia—despite the overwhelming support in sources as seen in this instance.

And you are now conceding that no—WP:BLPCAT would not apply to require self-identification concerning saying someone is Jewish in the body of an article. But still you are saying to "Move on".

This is a collaborative process. Here we see "AndyTheGrump" and "Off2riorob" weighing in with their predictable objection to following sources.

It is the same group of people making the argument in so many of these instances. Here we see a typical turnout of some of the usual members of the group of editors I am referring to. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources but this group of editors seem to often feel that we can not state in our articles that an individual is Jewish.

Jewishness is an attribute of identity. Where it is thoroughly sourced it is certainly valid material for inclusion. WP:BLP only requires enhanced stringency in sourcing. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewishness is an attribute of identity". Exactly. Yanofsky's identity is for her to define. Any outside source claiming to be able to assert her identity for her is therefore not a reliable source - you cannot assert that someone else is X or Y, only that you chose to identify them as such. And I note you've refused to answer the perfectly simple question I asked earlier. Or is it too complex for you to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk)

AndyTheGrump—do you find any policy in support of what you are saying? I think you are saying that otherwise reliable sources are not reliable for the purposes of reporting that someone is Jewish. I would assume you mean in the absence of self-identification. Is this proposed policy? Or is this already-existing policy? If so—please point to policy. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question, and I'll answer yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—what is your question? I'm "claiming" that sources are saying the person is Jewish.

You ask: "Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith?"

The two sources we have do not use the terms "ethnicity" or "faith". What is your question?

This is your entire post: "Bus Stop, a simple question. Are you claiming that the sources you cite state that Yanofsky is Jewish (a) by ethnicity, or (b) by faith? These are two different questions, and need to be considered as such.

What question would you like me to answer from your above post? You are not asking a question that can be answered because our sources for the Yanofsky article don't employ the terms "ethnicity" or "faith".

Do you feel that the sources are thereby invalidated for the purposes of supporting that the individual is Jewish? Should we throw out the information that we derive from those sources, such as that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, because an editor has further questions?

Wikipedia is said to be not finished. We don't throw up our hands in despair because someone has further questions.

An additional problem with your "question" is that sources don't use the term "ethnicity" by-and-large in relation to Jews. When used, it has a specific purpose. (There's no reason to go into that now.) More common terms are "religious", "secular", "observant", "nonobservant". There are others too. But you won't find "ethnic" used very often. If you doubt this, please bring me some instances of this use. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blind unexplained statement that whoever is Jewish is completely valueless in a BLP. She is a Canadian. Born in Canada to Canadian parents goes to a Canadian school. If you think her genetic ancestry is notable then please provide some details as to why that requires us to go beyond what we already have in the article. Where was her mother born? and her father? what about her grandparents.... when did her ancestors last live in Israel or which of them are religious believers, is the subject herself interested in the Jewishness of her ancestors? Does the user follow the Jewish religious faith? What percentage of her ancestry is Jewish? and ultimately why is any of it notable beyond what we have already in the article? Here in the were opening of the article is the reason she is notable and who she basically is, read it and accept it , Nicole "Nikki" Yanofsky (born February 8, 1994) is a Canadian jazz-pop singer from Hampstead, Quebec.Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a Thetan - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Off2riorob, but are you saying that it is notable that she's a Canadian? How is it notable that ANYONE is Canadian? Is she notable because she's Canadian? If you say we can't put she's Jewish (if she really is) then it should apply equally to her being Canadian. A reliable source that happens to state she's Jewish is good enough. Frankly a reliable source stating her mother is Jewish is also good enough, because she would be considered a Jew. Of course I wont press that last part anywhere because technically if my cat ever becomes famous then a Wikipedia article could concievably be written claiming that my cat is a Muslim (in the Islamic religion all animals are by default Muslim, regardless of their owner's religion).

We need to realize that Wikipedia can NOT treat the Jews the same as a religion, it is not the same as being Catholic where you can through your life be or not be a Catholic on any given day. You ARE Jewish or you are not. With exception of converts. You can not change being Jewish any more than a person can decide "Oh, I'm not an Australian Aborigine, I'm now a Scandinavian". No, you're not a Scandinavian, and Wikipedia at best could only state "XY is an Australian Aborigine who declares themselves to be a Scandinavian". Also Jewishness IS a nationality ON EQUAL TERMS with being a Canadian, and has nothing to do with the State of Israel.Camelbinky (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia

We have a little content dispute over here at Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia, so a third opinion (or contribution) is appreciated. Basically, another editor created the article, but only to a level of a poorly referenced stub, and then left. I don't see a point of such an article, so I merged what's usable into History of the Jews in Serbia.

The topic potentially deserves a full-scale article, but this is hardly a good start. No such user (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infringing upon human rights of the Jews at Noah's Ark?

Looks like some more input at Talk:Noah's Ark might be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I am even more concerned that the header of The Exodus ignores the traditional view entirely. What happens when people do school reports about Passover? I believe the NPOV page (see the questions) allows traditional views. I fixed this somewhat at the Daniel page.Mzk1 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Jewish control of the media

Now that the Arbcom case and Passover are both out of the way. What should happen with this article? Is it salvageable in its current form? Or would an AfD be better with the option of someone with a less dubious editing history being able to start again from scratch?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind to explain the issue? Not everybody here (me specifically included) knows what the problem is with this article and/or its editors. And what Arbcom case (link)?Debresser (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was created and built by Noleander (talk · contribs), who on 18 April received a topic ban from Judaism articles by the ArbCom for odious bias. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say this about Noleander. Some months ago (over a year?) I did a reliability check on his use of sources at Criticism of Judaism. What I found was that, of the online sources I could easily check, none of them was free of distortion, misuse, original research or other fundamental problems. Since then, I have noticed that he heavily favors print sources over sources that are easier to verify. However, I didn't really have time to chase them down so I left them alone. Now that this arbcom decision has been made, I think it's clear that nothing Noleander says about a source can be taken on trust. It should all be treated with a presumption of having been falsified unless proof is provided to the contrary. I don't know if the arbcom decision went this far, but I favor deleting or reverting all his contributions on the subject of Judaism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media. Steven, you are welcome to use this space for any related afds you want to create.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elazar Shach

There seems to be an edit war going on, on the article on Rav Shach, between User:Jayjg and User:Winchester2313. Please see Talk:Elazar Shach if you can help.Nerguy (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again... Debresser (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arizal was a Palestinian

I have reverted some edits of User:Chesdovi recently, which resulted in this WP:ANI case.

One of the edits is this sick edit, which shocked me by its antisemitic POV. Please see a few more examples of things that need to be fixed.

In addition, I think it is about time this WikiProject take note of the subject for which the WP:ANI case was opened, since I feel a little like a lone voice in the wilderness in my arguments with Chesdovi, who - as I just now found out - has a history of quite a few blocks in connection with WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the Arizal Hakodosh Palestinain in neither anti-semitic nor achronistic. You are confusing modern day politics with centuries old classification of Jewish sages in the Holy Land. Don't let the I-P conflcit blind or confuse you. The Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine is out of sink with all other similar categories, and spans to larger period. A category for all Palestinian rabbis throughout the centuries if sorely needed. There is no shortage of RS which refer to such rabbis as Palestinian and we should not be any dfferent. We simply cannot have a category called the Land of Israel Gaonate or Gaonate in the Land of Israel instead of its proper usage in RS, namely as the Palestinian Gaonate. Chesdovi (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other but I think the right thing to do is to bring more editors into the discussion rather than edit war between yourselves. It's clear that each of you has strong opinions on the subject, but please, let's try to discuss this calmly, okay? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clearer: I was speaking of the dispute at AN/I concerning categorizing rabbis. With regard to the specific edit cited above, I reverted it because it was redundant: it resulted in a sentence that read "Palestinian rabbi ... in Ottoman Palestine." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the statement that the rabbi was a Palestinian is problematic. Due to the current meaning of the term, we should be very careful before applying it. This doesn't seem like a case where it's necessary. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish views of wealth and poverty

I have just created an article in mainspace titled Jewish views of wealth and poverty. Suggestions for improvement are welcomed at the Talk Page. Or just be bold and edit the article directly. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you realise that "Jewish viwes" is the same as "Views". "Over the course of Jewish history, different attitudes have been held towards poverty and wealth." Of course there has. There is not a cabal of Jewish ringleaders who decide what all Jews are to think or how to behave. I am sure the "Jewish views" throughout the ages on this matter range from one extreme to the other. This is not the palce to document opinions of various Jews on such an impossibly ill-defined subject. Besides, for a page about "Jewish" views, there seems to be an awful lot of Chrisitianity. Using Christian values to contrast and be used as a yardstick to measure the morals to those of another religion is a terribly bad move. And why the massive section on moneylending. Does this page document how Jews became wealty or poor aswell? Maybe rename to Views on how rich Jews made money off the poor Christians using biblically prohibited usury. Yup, that's much more accurate. Chesdovi (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :::::So Bus Stop,in other words if a source says that someone is 'Jewish', the reliability of the statement has to be determined according to its meaning to Jews, who can then decide exactly what it means, or apply it arbitrarily to 'mean' anything? Wrong, just wrong. Scientologists could claim (indeed, they probably would) that Yanofsky is an an immortal spiritual being - a [[Space opera in Scientology scripture|Thetan]] - currently reincarnated in in Yanofsky's "meat body". We don't apply the rules (or opinions) of particular ethno-religious groups to determine identity, for obvious reasons. Instead, we determine the reliability of statements from their context, and the meaning given to them. On this basis, a statement that Yanofsky is 'Jewish' that does not expand on this to indicate in what sense the term is used cannot be cited except as opinion - and even as that, it isn't much of a source. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
+:Excuse me Off2riorob, but are you saying that it is notable that she's a Canadian? How is it notable that ANYONE is Canadian? Is she notable because she's Canadian? If you say we can't put she's Jewish (if she really is) then it should apply equally to her being Canadian. A reliable source that happens to state she's Jewish is good enough. Frankly a reliable source stating her mother is Jewish is also good enough, because she would be considered a Jew. Of course I wont press that last part anywhere because technically if my cat ever becomes famous then a Wikipedia article could concievably be written claiming that my cat is a Muslim (in the Islamic religion all animals are by default Muslim, regardless of their owner's religion).
+:We need to realize that Wikipedia can NOT treat the Jews the same as a religion, it is not the same as being Catholic where you can through your life be or not be a Catholic on any given day. You ARE Jewish or you are not. With exception of converts. You can not change being Jewish any more than a person can decide "Oh, I'm not an Australian Aborigine, I'm now a Scandinavian". No, you're not a Scandinavian, and Wikipedia at best could only state "XY is an Australian Aborigine who declares themselves to be a Scandinavian". Also Jewishness IS a nationality ON EQUAL TERMS with being a Canadian, and has nothing to do with the State of Israel.[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]] ([[User talk:Camelbinky|talk]]) 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 == Talk:The Holocaust in Serbia ==