User talk:IZAK/Archive 27

IZAK (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Mir Yeshiva

IZAK I see you have changed Mir Yeshiva to Mir yeshiva. For consistency, please do the same to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. --Redaktor 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Redaktor: Since yeshiva is a Hebrew word and it's not even the official name of the Mir, it gets a small "y" which has been the case in almost all articles with the second name being a Hebrew word. See Slabodka yeshiva, Volozhin yeshiva, Novardok yeshiva, Telshe yeshiva -- so it's not an "insult" of any kind, I assure you! IZAK 11:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not an insult (did I say it was?), it is just lousy English. The name of something is a proper noun. It makes no difference whether it is the official name or not. When people say Mir Yeshiva they are naming the yeshiva. No one would write Cambridge university, with a small u, even though that is not the official name. Names are always proper nouns.--Redaktor 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Redaktor: The following is your problem, when you state: "It makes no difference whether it is the official name or not" and "When people say Mir Yeshiva they are naming the yeshiva" because (a) Official names are important, but when another name is used then we follow Wikipedia's rules (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalization) and the "yeshiva" in "Mirrer" merely tells us that it's a yeshiva and not it's true "OFFICIAL" name and likewise with the others. And (b) what "people say" does not create the official name of anything, just a common name or even a nickname usage in the vernacular. Finally, (c) it's often a great challnge to determine exactly which name to choose for a well-known yeshiva, its common name versus its official name, and you will see this reflected in the different choices made by editors over the years at Category:Orthodox yeshivas, with some listed under their official names and others under their common names. But a common name means that it will get a small "y" and not a big "Y" for yeshiva. That has been the order that had been followed. Universities have official names (do they have "official" common names?) and this was not neglected when the article about Yeshiva University was written. There was a similar discussion to this one held at Talk:Telshe yeshiva in July of '06, look it over and tell me what you think. We could bring together a group of editors familiar with this subject and thrash this issue out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism if you like. Kol Tuv, IZAK 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reb Shlomo Carlebach

IZAK, please check this page. Some additions have recently been added, which appear to me to violate the standoff you had with CKessler. I tried to correct them but my corrections were overturned by others [not CK] who seem to have stepped into her shoes. I don't understand something -- the whole topic of Shlomo's "alleged sexual harrassment" was supposed to be in mediation. Where does that mediation stand? [It appears to be at a standstill for several months now]. And if so, why are people allowed to violate what appears to be a tacit agreeement not to post about this subject until the mediation is over. Please enlighten me, and if you can take action to improve the Carlebach page, please do so. I must admit I have neither the experience nor the time to do much more. And thanks! Demblin 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Demblin: I looked over the recent changes and they seem to have been done in a decent manner in a "Controversy" section Shlomo Carlebach#Controversy and User:MPerel is a responsible and fair editor, so as long as it can be kept in context and all the positions pro and against are made, I think the article is fair as it stands now. The problem with User:Ckessler's edits was that they were too strident and revealed a very female chauvinist sexist attitude that simply wanted to paint Carlebach as a sexual ogre without regard to the fact that he was a Jewish musical super-star first and foremost. The way she was headed he would have come out looking like some kind of "Jewish Charles Manson" on the other hand I think you can rely on user User:MPerel she will not let Carlebach go below a "Jewish Frank Sinatra" or thereabouts... IZAK 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, IZAK. Demblin 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. All the best, IZAK 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • IZAK, you're a riot!! MPerel will not let Carlebach go below a "Jewish Frank Sinatra" or thereabouts..., lol!! That was very sweet...I think : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi Miri: Yea, I thought so, not that I meant to make a direct comparison between the styles or personalities of Carlebach vs. Sinatra, just that they both seem to represent some sort of "musical gold standard of yesteryear" -- one in composing and singing Jewish religious songs and the other in voice crooning that is second to none, if you get what I mean. IZAK 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nazuraiun

I never heard of it, and it sounds pretty weird, but that doesn't prove anything. I will ask a couple people... —Dfass 13:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked my brother, who said he had never heard of this either. He also said there is no mention in either Encyclopedia Judaica or the Merriam Websters Encyclopedia of World Religions. —Dfass 06:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazuraiun. Thanks. IZAK 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oberlander Jews

Hi IZAK. I hope this finds you well. This article, Oberlander Jews, has been irritating me for quite a while. Is there some way the article can be improved/expanded/cited, or is it just someone's flight of fancy? Also asking Brian... Tomer^talk 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer: The (brief) article is accurate as in the Haredi world, particularly of the German and Hungarian Jews, and the nexus of the two, the Oberlanders were and are a distinct and notable sub-group. I don't have the time at the moment to work on it. Be well, IZAK 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gebruchts

Hey IZAK, please review my edit of this article. I'm only vaguely familiar with the subject matter (primarily because I needed to overcome my bewilderment when I've been asked "do you eat gebruchts" and I got sick of saying "what's a gebrucht?!" :-p), which should be relatively obvious by the fact that I predominantly restricted myself to casefixing, minor rewordings, and changing "on Passover" to "during Passover" consistently throughout. Please let me know your thoughts when you have the time. Cheers, Tomer^talk 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ho Tomer: Looked at it. The article seems good enough for now. Don't obsess over it. Take care, IZAK 19:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have voted for User:Kirill Lokshin. Thank you, IZAK 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Peruvian Jews

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Peruvian Jews. Since you were involved with the deletion discussion for this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Newport 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify

Please clarify what you meant when you wrote Keep on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_of_Chabad-Lubavitch. Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Pinchas, I mean keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch as is and expand on it as well. IZAK 12:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

blogosphere terms

I saw your discussion in my now deleted list of j-blogosphere definitions. I did not get any notification of this prior to deletion, but I do understand the reasoning.

Never the less I would have liked to at least copy the list and post it on my own blog for reference. Is it possible to get a hold of the page? Is it cached somewhere or can it be briefly restored?

Psychotoddler 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I voted to keep the list [1]. However I do see from your talk page that you were notified [2] about the vote to delete. Do you ever look at your own talk page? You can refer to the permanent record of the vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere. I am not an admin, but there are ways to retrieve the deleted material (as would happen if it would be brought back through a Wikipedia:Deletion review.) I suggest you contact the following who are all admins with an interest in Judaic topics: User:Jayjg; User:TShilo12; User:Humus sapiens; User:SlimVirgin and they will be able to advise and assist you. You can also ask for help in this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Keep me posted. IZAK 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Shlomo Carlebach (mashgiach ruchani)

Thank you very much for bringing the article out of the stub-status and into real english! Leschinski 12:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome. IZAK 08:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Medzhibozh dynasty and the Baal Shem Tov

IZAK sorry to bother you but Klezmer keeps deleting the Medzhibozh dynasty on both the Baal Shem Tov page Yisroel_ben_Eliezer_(The_Baal_Shem_Tov) and the Baal Shem Tov's family tree on the List of Hasidic Dynasties page --We went through this already when the Medzhibozh dynasty page was first written and it was decided to keep -- Klezmer seems to be bothered because of he's hung up on the Apter "Rebbe" as being the continuation of Medzhibozh -- do you want to a look and put your two cents in. --ChosidFrumBirth 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I will try, but can't promise. Please also ask User:Jfdwolff and User:PinchasC (both admins sensitive to POV clashes and aware of Judaism topics) to help you as well. IZAK 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

hey IZAK

Thanks for the invitations. I haven't had time to read up much, but from what I was taught [and I'll find sources before adding this, you can be sure], women are obligated if they take obligations upon themselves. In the case that they marry and their husbands (w/o violating shalom habayith) "nullify" their obligation, the obligation goes away, but when a woman commits herself to something, she becomes obligated, whether she is according to halakha or not, notwithstanding...for her it carries the weight of minhagh...as surely as Rashi's daughters were obligated to lay tefilin bcz of their commitment to doing so, their daughters were not if their husbands didn't consider it binding upon them. In the same way, a litvak woman who marries a galitzianer can wait only 3 hours if she adopts her husband's minhag, but, as far as I'm aware, cannot be compelled to eat dairy while she still considers herself basari according to the "6 hours" minhag of the majority of Litvaks. I'm not sure to what extent this extends to either wearing a taleth or layning butzibber (my best attempt at transliterating ashkenazglish) in modern ashkenazi "orthodoxy", but I am sure that, even as much as the fire of passion for halakha burns in your soul, you could be less abrasive in your discourse with, and concerning, Shirahadasha. Kol tov, Tomer^talk 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tomer, Shavua Tov: No-one on Wikipedia can, or should try to, "re-invent" Judaism or present a Judaism that does not exist because that would be tantamount to conjuring up a neologism writ large in violation of WP:NEO. And certainly no-one can cook up a version of so-called "Orthodoxy" that only the extreme ultra-radical left-wing of extreme Modern Orthodoxy is trying to do (they have only started, as it's denounced by almost everyone to the right of them, which is basically everyone who is Orthodox), but has very far from succeeded so far, as no-one but a few unknown academics and pathetically a "lawyer" is used to justify creating hybrids like partnership minyans in the name of a concocted "halakha" shelo haya velo nivra. Now Shirahadasha has bobbed and weaved through this minefield for a long time and ducks when the claim is made that she is presenting as "Halakhic" that which goes against Halakha according to basically anyone who is someone in the world of Halakha, but which your average Wikipedia reader knows next-to-nothing, zilch, zippo about, which works to Shirahadasha's advantage as she writes "bios" about fake "halakhists" and articles about marginal phenomena and then sells it on Wikipedia with justifications that there are twenty references on the web and five people wrote books about it (whoopy doo, there are tens of thousands of books by neo-Nazis but what does that mean?) and people think that I am raving mad, well tough, no-one said it was going to be easy to write articles about Judaism. (Remember we are talking Orthodoxy here as I don't get involved in non-Orthodox articles, so the Conservative, Reform and other POV's are not part of this picture -- albeit they do loom in the kind of future Shirahadasha is preparing, by accident or design I am not sure which, for Modern Orthodox Jewish feminists and those agitating to foist "partnership minyans" on a very wary and resistant customers, very similar to the suger-coated poison-apple that put the unsuspecting Snow White to sleep (read: "died") for a long time!) So why should anyone be given a free ride on Wikipedia to rewrite Jewish law and by definition Jewish history BEFORE it's even happened in the real world?, which is essentially what Shirahadasha is trying to do, in violiation of several WP:NOTs. So the discussion is really a very strong and vigorous academic debate on Wikipedia between scholars used to the hurly-burly of the Talmudic shakla vetarya and I would not panic if I were you. Orthodoxy is a biiiiiig wiiiiiide woooooorld. Haredi Judaism, with Hasidic Judaism at the helm, has hundreds of thousands of adherents. Orthodox Religious Zionism has hundreds of thousands of followers, and there are many "plain" Orthodox Jews. Sephardi Jews are mostly Orthodox in the traditional sense (with no known "womens' liberation" in minyanim and things like that.) And I know the world of Orthodoxy very well for many, many years, inside and out and outside and in. I read four Jewish weeklies "religiously" and I read Jewish news on the Net constantly from multiple sources, and I am 100% positive that Shirahadasha's agenda represents the equivalent of the left-wing lunatic fringe of ultra-Modern-Orthodoxy (to balance out, I guess the ultra-right-wing lunatic fringe of Neturei Karta) and NONE of these "ultra" extremist nut-job groups reflect or represnt the broad spectrum of Orthodox and Haredi Judaism. This is not about a "passion for Halakha" or some sort of religious obsession, rather, from an academic, historical, and factual analysis, there is no need to allow and nod in agreement when the craziest ideas are packaged and served up in accordance with "WP:RULES" because that is the height of deceit and dishonesty, and must be opposed. IZAK 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Jerusalem

Hi Tariqabjotu: You nominated List of places in Jerusalem for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Jerusalem.) However it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [3]), as he had his reasons, which is not well-understood now as can be seen in the present deletion discussion. Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder although I would have appreciated one that was less... er... condescending. As for the suggestion that the creator ought to be notified, I would like you to note that the editor has made a total of six edits in the past year and has edited the article only once – over a year and a half ago (in May 2005). Although I'll admit I have rarely adhered to the AfD instruction you cited, I would really only consider doing so if I have seen certain names repeatedly in the history. The spirit of the AfD instruction, I presume, was to ensure that the creator was not hurt by the fact that the article (s)he spent so much time making suddenly vanishes. The article in question has been present for over a year and half, and even longer within the main Jerusalem article. In the same manner I wouldn't track down and contact the writer of a paragraph I'm about to delete so as not to discourage him/her, I wouldn't consider notifying individual contributors unless the article in question is relatively new and/or certain editors have clearly put significant amounts of effort into it. I'm sure it would be civil to notify the creator regardless, but I take issue with the instructions implying that it would be incivil not to. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tariqabjotu: Let's keep things simple and in perspective here. The main issue is that when one nominates any article/category/etc for deletion, one should let the original creator know about it (because it's a natural extension of WP:CIVIL), regardless of if the creator of the original article has written six or six hundred articles. Nominating to delete someone else's work is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly. This does not apply to the regular give-and-take of editing articles, where different rules-of-the-game apply (even though one should be very cautious about deleting entire sections of/in articles without ample discussion on talk pages where possible), so your comparison between editing procedures and nominating articles for deletion is not to the point. Feel free to stay in touch. IZAK 13:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

Hi, IZAK. Thanks for the advice. Next time I'll notify the creator. However, in this case the creator has already posted to the AfD discussion, and he and I had an exchange on the article's talk page within about an hour of the nomination, so he's already well aware. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Rrburke: Ok, thanks. IZAK 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to be on the same side for once

On this afd. Funny, from this side of the fence suddenly your wit seems cutting and poignant and not the lease bit acerbic. Go figure! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Kendrick old chap: I have done so much editing, I can't even remember when or why or about what we last crossed paths. At any rate, I do not hold grudges so it's always delightful getting a nice note like the one you have just sent me. Feel free to contact me at any time if you think I need to be made aware of something. It would be my pleasure if I am not flooded with something else (not to mention life...) Sincerely, IZAK 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nudity in Judaism

IZAK, your list of absurd nudity articles appears to have inadvertently omitted Nudity in combat, Nudity in American television, Christian naturism, LDS Naturism, and a number of others that I couldn't have imagined until I saw the titles. Note that the Nudity in Judaism article appears to be nothing more than a direct copy of the Christian Naturism article with references to the New Testament removed. The article's creator hadn't even bothered to remove references to the Devil when we first saw it. Shabbat Shalom. --Shirahadasha 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeking input on category

Hi Izak, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but have come across many of your edits and comments and wanted to ask about your thoughts on something. People seem to add [Jewish American] (and the like) category tags to any bio where the individual appears to be Jewish. I have often removed the tag when it appears not to conform to WP:BLP, especially, when the reason for the category tag is not made explicit in the text, the person does not publicly self identify as Jewish, and relevance to their notoriety is not demonstrated. This has been challenged by users claiming that since the category refers to ethnicity, this restrictions do not apply. I have seen you state that being Jewish is a mix of ethnicity and religion. Do you think the religion restrictions should apply? Do you feel this is a settled issue on Wikipedia? I'd very much appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Notmyrealname 04:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Notmyrealname: The fact that being Jewish is both a religious and an ethnic fact is not "my" idea, it's an accepted fact. But that has nothing to do with the problem you are referring to. As a rule on Wikipedia I basically NEVER tag anyone as being "Jewish-this-or-that" or not, as it's totally meaningless the way it's used on Wikipedia where there is no agreement at all about who is really Jewish, which is why there is even a template {{Jew list}} to try to deal with the confusion surrounding this entire subject. However, UNLESS there are very good historical or religious or cultural PROVABLE reasons to mention someone's Jewishness that add to the understanding of that person, and where usually there have been books and research done on it so that Wikipedia articles can and must reflect that as well -- otherwise, to run around and stick the label "Jewish" or "Jew" to any Tom-Dick-and-Jane who ever ate a bagel or cornbeef sandwich is dumb. To be quite honest, while I feel it is proper to have some articles mention the names of people who were of Jewish ancestry, I feel that it is mostly the "lists" and "categories" of "Jews" that are totally useless and should be removed, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Feel free to keep up the dialogue. IZAK 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi IZAK, well said. Again, per my note below, you mention that "some" articles should mention ethnicity. Which ones? My take is that relevance and readability/flow of the article are very important factors. I hate seeing ethnicity "shoved" into an article for its own sake. What would be your take on this article, Mike Lieberthal for example? Cheers! --Tom 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Tom: Which the articles should be that mention ethnicity or religious affiliation needs to be decided by experienced and reliable editors who know their subject/s best and not by people who have obvious or suspicious "agendas" to slap the equivalant of cyber "yellow stars" on the likes of Mike Lieberthal who was NOTED for his baseball skills ONLY, period. Mentioning the ethnicity or religion of someone like Mike Lieberthal in an article is the equivalant of mentioning his blood type or his family's health history or his credit rating or his Social Security number or reviewing his sex life in an article about him. Now all of these things are surely VERY interesting and could no doubt be "justified" in some way or other as being "inherently" part of the subject, but in actual fact they add NOTHING to understanding him as ball player and sportsman. Looking at it differently, what sense would it make to tell us what sports or athletics every politician or famous person partook in? Zero, (unless it was someone like President Gerald Ford who was a famous athlete in his youth.) Bottom line, we need to apply our HUMAN qualities and not act like indiscrimnate computers/zombies that automatically swallow up and then spit out "facts and figures" like so many "zeros and ones" without any sense of HUMAN intelligence and judgment being applied as to what is appropriate for that subject/article. Otherwise we have opened the door to an information "free-for-all" where any piece of relative TRIVIA gets positioned the same way significant information does. There should be a rule called Wikipedia:Use good judgment (let's call it WP:Judge for short) to create rules for removing what is not ABSOLUTELY relevant to subjects/articles. IZAK 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think there might be a decent case to be made for Mike Lieberthal. He's been mentioned in several articles about Jewish Major League Baseball players, and was included in a set of Jewish Baseball players by a reputable outfit (I find the way the main editor of the page is doing it to be very clunky stylistically, however). In general though, I'm with you 100% on the Wikipedia:Use good judgment thing. I think the burden of proving relevancy of categories has to be on the editor trying to include the information, otherwise every bio just becomes a giant trivia collection. I don't think these things are (or can be) cut and dried. That's what editing is about, and the point of hashing things out in a civil manner on talk pages. Okay, what do you think about tagging Joshua Bolton with the Jewish American category? The editor there, an administrator I believe, is claiming that I'm out of line to question this. Would you or Tom care to weigh in? Notmyrealname 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Hi, I think that as long as the Category:Jewish Americans (and others like it) exists, Josh Bolten can be in it and tagged as such. He is prominent enough at this time, and his Jewish ancestry is being being mentioned more frequently, to justify it. IZAK 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the talk:Joshua Bolten page. The only link I saw to his Jewishness was an aside about a nickname that Karl Rove made to him. From a quick look, less than half of the actual members of the Bush cabinet have their religion mentioned (most of them Jews, interestingly enough), and Bolten's position is not a cabinet level one. Just seems a rather trivial detail, especially the way it is written into the article at the moment. My bigger concern at the moment was that the other user claimed that since this was a matter of ethnicity, not religion, I was violating some sort of Wikipedia rules for even challenging the category. Since you've raised the question, my main reasons for even bringing this stuff up are yellow star-ing people, and encouraging the use of some sort of editorial discretion in the use of categories. Notmyrealname 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again: This entire subject seems to be veering into tangents. Here's what needs to be borne in mind: At this time, it's a matter of perspectives or POV's. While on the one hand the ethnicity and/or religion (or lack thereof) of a famous person is important to many people, and in the USA a great fuss is made of such things, on the other hand there are those who do feel it should NOT be mentioned in MOST serious articles. For example, what difference does it make to place Category:Greek-Americans and Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians and even Category:People from Queens into the article about former CIA director George Tenet? It's like having categories for Category:Short Americans and Category:Church-going Christians and Category:People who love cornflakes. Personally, I think that such "categories" or information in the article are superfluous or redundant and a nuisance and do not add anything to the body of a well-written, meaningful and scholarly article which should focus on this important person's professional life, his role in government, politics, and his place in history. Stuff about religion and ethnicity should be in the "==Trivia==" sections of articles MAYBE, unless it was known to be a major issue in that person's life! But since Wikipedia allows for such things, at this time, one has to live with it until such time as policies and rules are formulated that will trim trivia from Wikipedia (hey, maybe that should be a new policy Wikipedia:Trim trivia or WP:TRIM.) So at this time, it can swing either way. One cannot create, let alone work from, any general rules about this the way things stand at this time on Wikipedia. IZAK 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:TRIV. I actually edited the Joshua Bolten piece to incorporate a sounder reason for the category and a proper citation. My operating assumption was that categories in biographies should be used cautiously (as suggested in WP:BLP) and that relevancy (by some sane definition, not just "hey some obscure newsletter mentioned it") should be demonstrated (along the lines of what you have stated above). Based on the reactions I've encountered, this doesn't seem to be a popular position. Notmyrealname 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK

I don't you how I stumbled onto your sub page about removing lists/categories of Jews but I did. A brief reading proved very informitive and agreeable. The rub and the entire cruks of the matter come down to your point #16. You say "Obviously" but here comes the subjectivity right back into the aurguement and we are back at square one. Some joker was adding every tom dick and harry to the category of Jewish-Businessmen. Jayjg put the kabosh on that and nuked the entire article down to like 4 people. I agree that only people of note should be added, but how is that determined? I am sure the list will creep back up and soon be back to full tilt. Anyways, I find categories/labels/lists ect extremely problematic since people with agendas will use them either way. Cheers!--Tom 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tom, see my response above. IZAK 21:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no IZAK, now you have gone and gone it, expect a call form user:Epeefleche :) . He has added references to every Jewish baseball player every to play. I totally agree that Lieberthal's Jewishness is not what should make him notable. Again, players like Sanford Koufax do deserve mention since it did effect them professionally. I personally don't like the way that article currently reads but I have already trimmed it once. Anyways, I really do appreciate your voice of reason. As background, I did recieve a one month block for "creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits" since I removed ethnicity from a ton(like 200) of bios that mentioned "Jewish-American" in the lead sentence which violated WP:MOSBIO imo. I hope I can run other instances where I feel a change is needed and appreciate your feedback here. Cheers! --Tom 21:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a time a while back when a particular user slapped any (Jewish) ethnic and religious "identity" tag onto articles. He may have been banned since then or has just grown up and left (as often, the most obnoxious users are just teenagers with too many hormones influencing them, so it can be almost impossible to stop them at the time if they are on an editorial rampage.) But it's an almost impossible and thankless task chasing such people, just take a look at what has been collected at Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and Category:American people by religion thus far and unless there is a change of Wikipedia policies this trend will continue even as it accomplishes NOTHING. IZAK 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi; have you seen this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_13#Category:Jewish_Encyclopedia --FeanorStar7 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

Could you have a look at these articles and their talk?

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution

I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to troll around for lehakholis (Aramaic word, you might be able to guess what it means). --Metzenberg 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I really need your help here. ZayZayEM is engaging in troll-like behavior, such as making edits on the very materials I am editing, removing sourced materials immediately after I add them, and so forth. It is a harassment pattern that extends across multiple articles. The main articles involved are:

* Jewish reactions to intelligent design

* Jewish opposition to evolution

* Natan Slifkin

It is bizarre behavior, because I can see no reason why he is even interested in this material. As you and I both know, it is material you have to really understand well to edit. Over the last week, I have substantially rearranged all the materials on Judaism and evolution in an effort to clean up the main Judaism and Evolution page first of all, so that it can be turned into a page that is not dominated by issues (such as the Slifkin affair) that would have undue weight. ZayZayEM has simply made it impossible for me to work. He has followed me from one article to another, demanding arbitrary changes. many of his edits, and his changes, show that he knows very little about the subject, which as you and I both know, is quite abstruse at times. --Metzenberg 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

شهادة

أشهد أ لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله

may Allah bless you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.141.81 (talk)

Translation:"Testimony" "I testify that there is no god but God and I testify that Muhammad is a messenger of God"

This anon's only contribs have been your userpage. Seems trollish.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever. To each his own, I guess... IZAK 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reedy Bot

Reedy Bot is tagging all sorts of articles with an irrelevant Wikipedia: Israel tag. Can you block it? --Redaktor 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi IZAK

Hi IZAK. I sanitized my User page because of an incident of disruptive editing that has been going on. In the past, I had naively placed a lot of personal infomration on it, about my family. I have worked primarily on pages about Judaism. I live in the United States and I am a member of Congregation Beth Sholom in San Francisco, California.

I have been interested in developing a "Jewish perspsectives" box to add to the Judaism series box. It would be a jumping off point to various articles on issues for which there are specific Jewish perspectives, both historical (recent history) and modern:

• Abortion
• Stem Cell Research
• Evolution
• Intelligent Design
• Role of Women
• Justice
• Environment
• Prayer in Schools
• Divorce
• Homosexuality
• Bioethics (issues like organ donation)
• Civil Rights movement

Please comment, if you have reviewed my request for arbitration and feel so inclined, at Request for arbitration

--Metzenberg 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Metzenberg: You should not be placing personal information on your user page, that's not smart, just something very general about your interests. The idea of "Jewish perspectives" sounds good, but of course you need to define what exactly a "Jewish perspective" is because what secular Jews and Reform Judaism may think is a "Jewish perspective" may be regarded as a total contradiction of of Judaism by traditionalists or as a display of ignorance and a perversion of the Torah and Jewish law by Orthodox Jews. So watch out, it's a minefield and you will need to obtain a general consensus from many many editors before you lunge and plunge into it. I suggest you put out some feelers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and seek out advice over there. Stay in touch, IZAK 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

List of people who went to heaven alive

Can you flesh out the Judaism section and remove the tag? I could probably research this myself -- I mean, I had a midrash once but a little ointment cleared that right up. Heh, I just suspect you might have such sources at your finger tips.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Kendrick, I'm staying out of this one at this time. Looks like a lot of other people are having fun with this "article" and the vote. Believe it or not, I do not like to stick my nose into every discussion, and in any case, often there is nothing I can do to stop stupidity from being created or unfolding or worse (as, probably, acording to Judaism, none of those Christians went to heaven...) So the best policy many times is to just stay out of it and see where things are headed. Sometimes articles need to sit on a perch for a while to get what they deserve, for better or worse. IZAK 07:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I was simply curious who the other six were. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Notify

Please see WP:PEREN for links to a few discussions where someone (perennially) suggests mandating notification of the page author, and this idea is opposed as instruction creep. I assume that people who care for a page have it watchlisted. >Radiant< 08:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Radiant!: Your above "citation" notwithstanding, as a very busy editor you can well appreciate that "watching" all pages that we have created is usually impossible and therefore any editor who is essentially proposing to destroy the work of another editor should practice WP:CIVILITY and try to adhere to the guidelines of: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion" and provide a warning according to the laws of basic human decency. You know, this reminds me of the story of the woman who was walking her dog down the road in front of people's homes and would allow her pooch to defecate in front of the houses. When people protested, she would retort that dog doo is "bio-degradable" so who are the homeowners to complain? Of course the fallacy of her argument is that while according to the "laws of nature" dog droppings do indeed "go away" after a time, yet it is still a slap in the face of the homeowners who have to contend with it in front of them. Likewise, may I suggest that before you jump to point out "rules" that in effect undermine core civility and make a mockery of "good faith," you should take into account that most editors wish to be informed of any attempt to destroy their work. No-one is asking you to inform "all" editors who have contributed to an article, but at least have the basic manners to let the first one know via {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users), which is why Wikipedia has them in the first place. IZAK 09:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I note that the author of this page has not edited since december, so the point is pretty much moot. I disagree that it is "basic manners" to notify the author of a page, and the implication that the (many) deletion regulars who do not notify people lack basic manners. I also disagree with your metaphors, and usage of laden terms like 'destroy'. If this is important to you, I suggest you make a policy proposal to mandate such warnings. However, in the meantime, you are welcome to notify the author of a page whenever you see me or anyone else nominate a page for deletion. >Radiant< 10:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Radiant!: Thanks for your feedback. Sorry, I can't provide you with a free "tracking service" but, in this case, I do try to practice what I preach when I nominate articles for deletion. IZAK 07:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Miami Boys Choir

• Hey there IZAK, nice to talk to you about some good news for once! Anyways, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Miami Boys Choir] but I've been in the process of drafting an article for them. After releasing almost two dozen albums over the past 30 years, I figure they're notable enough for an article. Anyways, I was hoping you could take a look at the article before I upload all the album covers and post it in the mainspace. Please let me know what you think! -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Chabuk: Sure, go for it. I know them well and love their songs. They have been around for thirty years and they are probably the most famous Jewish boys choir in the world, certainly in the English-speaking Orthodox world, since they sing most of their songs in (American) English. IZAK 07:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Hebrew

Hi IZAK
I want to create Babel box templates for Classical (or Biblical) Hebrew. For this purpose I need the translations for the boxes:

• hbo-4: This user speaks Old Hebrew at a near native level.
• hbo-3: This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of Old Hebrew.
• hbo-2: This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of Old Hebrew.
• hbo-1: This user is able to contribute with a basic level of Old Hebrew.

For the above sentences a translation for female and male users are needed. Some users don't like to speak in 3rd person of themselves, so translations "I am able ..." / "I speak ..." also are needed. For the category texts the plural is needed "These users are able ..." / "These users speak ...".

I hope you are the right person to help me. Thank you in advance. Hubert22 10:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Hubert: I do not think that these new user boxes would be helpful. They will clutter things up. The current Hebrew user boxes are fine. IZAK 08:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanhedrin

See Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Please help convince Historian2 that indeed all Ashkenazi Chareidi rabbonim forbid going on Har Habayis. --Bear and Dragon 12:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's so obvious that they all forbid it, that he has to be foolish to think otherwise. IZAK 08:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please give your view on Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. I would value your view. It's time to put an end to this nonsense on Wikipedia. --Bear and Dragon 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)