Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Main        Discussion Board        Members        Article Assessment        Templates        Categories        Resources        Manual of Style        To do        New Articles       Discussion Board Discussions relating to Jews and Judaism. (edit) (back to top) IPA fot Zeev Suraski Could someone provide the IPA for Zeev Suraski, the current article is a bit ridiculous. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2008-06-27 10:14 Nomination for deletion Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism Jewish Versions of articles I was just looking at the article King David and it seems to me that certain articles need to have parallel versions. If I wanted to have an article that described Dovid Hamelech with all the Jewish sources, it would probably not work in the general article as the Christians and Muslims wouldn't think it appropriate. And all those pictures of statues of Dovid Hamelech are just obscene. This is a general problem and I'm just using this article as an example because I wanted to edit it. I'm afraid of making any sort of change, because in the past it was impossible to make parallel articles, but perhaps it would work if we could come to some sort of consensus. It would be so much more useful for frum people if we could look at an article and not have to see all the idiocy that creeps into the general articles. For example, we could have all of Tanach from a Jewish point of view and link to articles that describe the medrashim etc. I would even think that it would be appropriate to have an Orthodox or sometimes even Charedi point of view, because otherwise you would constantly be fighting with people who have all sorts of things to say about medrashim and other parts of the mesorah. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I note that this was done with the Netinim, where there are three articles. I also think Biblical Wedding should have a hatnote, stating that it is the critical point of view and referring to Jewish Views of Marriage.Mzk1 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I think your idea is excellent, Ezra. We already have articles like Passover and Passover (Christian holiday). I would also like to see separate articles for the views of Bible critics. As it is now, articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship". Yoninah (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Being that it looks like there might be agreement here that parallel articles are a good idea, where would be a good place to broach the subject where all interested parties could weigh in? Ezra Wax (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) What you're proposing is clearly a POVFORK and is undesirable. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC) I have to agree with this comment. "Articles on Biblical topics like Abraham or The Exodus set out the topic according to Jewish sources, then the topic according to Christian sources, and then the complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"." Yes, it's called a neutral point of view. You can't only describe a topic according to its adherents or advocates. To deliberately take the argument to extremes, are we to allow everyone—paedophiles, terrorists, white supremacists included—to write about their beliefs in articles without the "complete undercutting of the topic according to "critical scholarship"," or should only articles about the Jewish religion have this special privilege? Is religion to be the only topic immune from critical analysis on Wikipedia? We have separate articles on the Jewish and Christian Passovers because they are not the same topic, and Passover is already too long to incorporate Christian observance of it (although it should at least be described in a summary section, not relegated to a mere "See also"). Those articles don't describe the observances from a 'Jewish POV' or a 'Christian POV' respectively, or at least they really shouldn't. Fences&Windows 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC) The comment above would be good, if this is what is happening. But, for example, the article on Daniel is entirely Christinan, including the quotes from Jewish sources. (See my comment there.) "Biblical wedding" is entirely historical-critical. Also, the texts are not always the same. Some Christian versions of Samuel have many extra chapters. There continual arguments against that the historical-critical ("scholarly") view is more notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Without addressing the POVFORK issue, I would point out that a Jewish article or section, would, presumably, include a range of Jewish viewpoints, including secularist, Reform and Conservative that accept historical-critical viewpoints to varying degrees. I still think that is a valuable addition, as the debates within the Jewish world are often different in tenor, in key issues, and even in source texts (as mentioned above) than those in the non-Jewish world. I do not know whether those need seperate articles, or a section is enough. See what I have tried to do with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Moses . I have added Jewish sources and POV's, from Orthodox to Reform, to secularist but "pro Jewish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 13:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Why do editors replace, for instance,' book of Exodus' with 'Hebrew Bible' I see this done from time to time, usually by IPs, never that I can recall with an explanation. Can anyone explain this please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Can you provide an example? -shirulashem(talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to [1]. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I can't be sure, but it might have to do with the desire to use "Hebrew Bible" instead of "Old Testament". Perhaps these editors are over-zealous, and don't realize that the problems with the term "Old Testament" don't apply to "Book of Genesis", since Jews and non-Jews alike refer to it as such. -shirulashem(talk) 16:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC) That makes sense. Perhaps there should be some guidance as to when to use "Hebrew Bible" and when not to use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps. Thank you for volunteering to write up the proposal. :) -shirulashem(talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Um, I'm not Jewish? We have a new editor, or perhaps the same IP with an account, doing it some more [2], [3]. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think it's likely that IPs and new editors will actually read these kinds of guidelines or essays, much less comply with them. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I agree entirely, but it would something we could then ask them to read. And it would help editors like me know what is what. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I see now someone has changed it from Book of Genesis to Torah. That is how a traditional Jew would be more likely to say it "Torah says" rather than "The Book of Genesis says" but is I suppose not appropriate for a wiki article on a topic of interest to a wider audience than mainly Jews. Ricardianman (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC) <------------- In my view, Christians want to underline the distinction between the laws of the New Testament and prefer to call the five books of Moses (Torah, Pentateuch) the Hebrew bible to distance themselves from it. The reasons are the incompatibility between Christianity and the laws within the Old Testament (circumcision, worship of graven images, pork, sabbath laws, etc.) which Christians ignore. Christians also prefer to refer to Jews who lived before the destruction of the Second Temple as Hebrews to make them more palatable. No Christian wants to picture Jesus as a circumcised, bearded rabbi who would be more at ease in a Synagogue than at a Church. Thus its more convenient to forget and not follow the laws the Hebrews followed same as laws of Assyrians and Hittites. Meishern (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I don't see this as a Christian vs Jewish thing, especially as the changes appear to have been made by Jewish editors. Please don't start up a religious war here. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I am not touching that article with a 20 foot pole. Just gave my view supported by some scholars. Other scholars disagree. Same as editors on Wikipedia. Some are comfortable with Old Testament and others are comfortable with Hebrew Bible. I offered my analysis since a question was asked. My ancestors haven't started a religious war in thousands of years, and I don't plan to break with that tradition. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) "Old Testament" is a confessional (religious, specifically Christian) term - there's a New Testament and an Old one. Hebrew bible is a scholarly term, invented and used by biblical scholars, but I think very rarely by devotional (Christian) writers. The idea is (a) to get away from the theological implications of talking about old and new testaments, and (b) to distinguish it from the Greek bible (the Septuagint). Why Doug's editor wants to replace Book of Genesis with Hebrew Bible I have no idea - doubtless he's a typical Wikipedia editor, ie, dead ignorant and proud of it.PiCo (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I would like to just mention that there is a common misconception that names such as Genesis are Christian in origin. In fact, they often are simply translations of the traditional Rabbinic names, named after the first TOPIC in the book, rather than the current practice of naming after the first significant word. Leviticus is admittedly a bit off; the traditional name is Torat Kohanim, a kohen being a priest rather than a Levite. Lamentations is correct; the traditional name is Kinot. The others seem pretty on target, except for splitting up Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra (which includes Nehemiah; the Talmud even discusses why he did not get his own book).Mzk1 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) In my opinion the word "Hebrew Bible" regardless of its possible use by scholars sounds unscholarly and unencyclopedic and most of all- insulting. I am Jewish and my Tanakh is not just the "Hebrew version of a Bible", do we call the Koran the "Islamic Bible"? It is the Tanakh. It isnt the "Old Testament" and the word bible has a connotation so wrapped up with Christianity that despite what "bible" may generically mean you can not remove it from that wrapping. Let's change articles to call "Passover" (Pesach) the "Hebrew Easter" or "Hebrew Solstice" while we are at it.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Ritual decalogue - in repeat Again, editors are trying to make it sound like the "Ritual Decalogue" is somehow equivalent to the Ten Commandments. Please comment on Talk:Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Could still use a few more voices here, particularly those who know more about the academic background of the RD. JFW | T@lk 12:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Strange reason for banning Holocaust info site from Wikipedia Website (holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/sobibor/sobiborrememberme.html) is blocked for 2 years now. I wrote the article about Alexander Pechersky of Sobibor fame and am rewriting the main Sobibor article now, and this banned website has some interesting (referenced) information. This is the reason for the block of this website explained on: [Wikipedia internal link - Spam Blacklist]: 1) 'Associated with the death camps nonsense'. Interesting use of the word 'nonsense'. Maybe its time to re-evaluate the racist, revisionist who wrote such a terrible reason for banning a holocaust information website. 2) 'the site is not reliable.' Each page on the website has references at the bottom, and from the information I've read, it is accurate, well written and doesnt conflict with other reliable sources. I just write articles, and am not familiar with the internal workings of Wikipedia. Would someone help me re-evaluate this situation and perhaps remove the person who describes the Holocaust as 'nonsense' from Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Meishern (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) You should read, in order, [4]. [5] and [6]. You can request that it be removed from the blacklist, but as Talk:Spam blacklist/Recurring requests says, you'll have to have a very good reason. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that by "death camps nonsense" the editor who wrote that was referring to the intellectual property dispute that was going on between the owners of deathcamps.org and death-camps.org. From what I can tell from a cursory glance at the relevant discussion pages, someone was going through a number of articles removing links to one site and replacing them with links to the other. As far as I can tell, the upshot is that death-camps.org is gone from the internet as a trademark violation and has been replaced with holocaustresearchproject.org and all three domains were blacklisted to stop the edit war. Sigh. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) One of the articles on my watchlist was the victim of the edit-warring, so I was somewhat relieved when both sites were blacklisted. You can still use them as sources, you just can't link to them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Too funny. Holocaust sites edit-warring and some kid doing a research paper now cant get quick access to interesting pages with compiled and referenced info from multiple sources. I wont misuse my time on this any longer since some of you know the situation better than I do. I just hope Yad Vashem wont start an edit war with the Holocaust Archives.... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Capitalization of messiah The MOS for Wikipedia itself states that the messiah is capitalized because of divinity. Since Judaism emphatically rejects this belief, it would seem that in the Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles "the messiah" should not be capitalized. Messiah without the acticle should, I would think, since it is a proper name. Any thoughts on this? (I know this should go in our MOS section, but I figured it would get lost there.)Mzk1 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I agree. Whether or not it be capitalized must depend on context. According to the Bible, Cyrus the great was a messiah - and however benificent, he was not divine! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC) However, if you look at the MOS I think they are actually conveying this. After The Messiah they list The Virgin and it is clear from context that they do not mean that Virgin should always be capitalized, hence, Messiah does nto always have to be capitalized 9according to the current MOS) Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Well, yes, that was my point. I have always felt this way, but I was was kind of surprised to see it here, given common usage. Also, I don't like to "rock the boat" when there is no important issue at hand. So, final point - does anyone object to a wholesale change of this nature? Note that it still needs to be capitalized when used as a name : Messiah will...., as opposed to: The messiah will.... Mzk1 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Proposed redirect of Ritual decalogue to Covenant code Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Importance assessment of Hebrew Bible Hebrew Bible is currenly rated as an article of high importance, while articles such as Rabbi are of top importance. I think it is quite obvious that the Bible is more important than the role of a Rabbi, so I think Hebrew Bible should be rated as an article of top importance. Tomer T (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) The Nine Days Since this is now the time, please review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks a lot. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash Looking over the articles relating to the Temple in Jerusalem, there is lots of confusion, some stemming from opposing secular and religious scholarly outlooks, but more so from various editors making major contributions over the course of a decade and creating and running parallel articles about what should be one topic. This is the situation at the moment: Temple in Jerusalem is the over-all article. So far so good, but it does not connect with so many other articles about its own subject matter, essentially the First and Second Temples. There should really be more about its name and place in Judaism over the millennia as the Beit Hamikdash - "House of Holiness" that was built for, functioned for, existed for, was destroyed for, and prayed for by the Jewish people. The First Temple article is at Solomon's Temple which reads like a Christian exposition and not like the holiest Jewish house of worship and sanctity that it was, while the Second Temple article is at Second Temple of Jerusalem. This is inconsistent. In addition, there is also a separate and parallel article for the Second Temple at Herod's Temple since Herod's Temple was an extension of the Second Temple. When trying to place the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which according to Judaism occurred on Tisha B'Av, with the general dates for their destruction in Jewish history conventionally given as 586 BCE and 70 CE, when one tries to look for the times relating to the destruction of the First Temple, there is no linkage to the subject matter of the Jewish version such as the build up from The Three Weeks and The Nine Days but rather the Solomon's Temple/First Temple article links to Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC) which cites "Babylonian chronicles" (published by Donald Wiseman in 1956) making no mention of the accepted Jewish chronology and observances relating to the same time-frame. In fact it uses the Jewish-sounding months in the non-Jewish Babylonian time-frame. (The names were originally from Babylonia, but not the actual concepts and months themselves which were of Mosaic origin in the Torah itself). With more articles like this from non-Torah sources each with their own POV of course. The only "normally named" Temple is the Third Temple, which does not even exist! While the First Temple and Second Temple have still not earned the honor of a clear-cut and clearly identifiable name and articles for themselves. This is a big job. But to start, please see how the article about the First Temple/Solomon's Temple can be improved by inserting into it more Jewishly relevant material about it's destruction that incorporates the timely themes of Seventeenth of Tammuz; The Three Weeks; The Nine Days; Tisha B'Av. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I think the First Temple is better known as Solomon's Temple in English. That explains the name and why First Temple redirects to it. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC) But not according to Judaism to which it belongs. It's about the Jewish First Temple not about how or what it's called according to an English or non-Jewish or secular POV. That's precisely my point. In Judaism, both temples are referred to as the Beit Hamikdash (or Bais Hamikdosh) collectively and more specifically as the Bayis Rishon -- "First Temple" (Bayis meaning "house" or "temple" of course) and Bayis Sheni -- Second Temple and the articles should reflect those facts and not what's "English" or what's imposed on it artificially. First Temple and Second Temple are also perfectly well-understood terms in English hence Second Temple of Jerusalem that should really suffice with Second Temple (Judaism) and nothing's wrong with First Temple (Judaism) or with Third Temple (Judaism) (for the Third Temple article). IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC) In favor of changing to consistent names according to Judaism: First Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article. Second Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article. Third Temple (Judaism) for all topics relating to this article. That would make sense and be consistent. IZAK (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Why do we need to disambig here? Why not just First Temple? I also am leaning towards keeping Solomon's Temple. (It's common name in Hebrew does not dictate its common name in English...?) Chesdovi (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Hi Chesdovi: Well I agree that "First Temple" is good, but to avoid any confusion, and to create clarity too, First Temple (Judaism) makes it 100% clear what the subject is. This is not about a mere "disambig" either -- it's about consistent naming. And it's not just about the outward names and labels "Solomon's Temple" versus "First Temple" alone because there are many connecting topics here that bolster the usage of "First Temple" over "Solomon's Temple". Let's look at Google. While there seems to be near parity between 334,000 hits for Solomons Temple (bolstered by the fact that many sites are using Wikipedia's article!) there are 294,000 hits for First Temple making them almost equal on this scale. Now, if you look at the subject in its proper context, not just as a "Solomonic production" but as the core and symbol of an entire era, then the name of "First Temple" is bolstered and backed up by the fact that the predominant term used is by far "First Temple" over anything else: 151,000 hits for First Temple Era (with only 2 hits for Solomon's Temple era I kid thee not!) and while there are 23,100 hits for First Temple period there are just 4 hits for Solomon's Temple period!; there are an astounding 442,000 hits for Destruction of the First Temple and more such as 44,800 hits for Destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, (while in comparison there are only 36,700 hits for Destruction of Solomon's Temple); and there are 144,000 hits for Building of the First Temple while there are 179,000 hits for Building King Solomon's Temple many that dwell on secular perspectives such as the Masons and whatnot and nothing to do with Judaism. Bottom line, these few example show that while on a few occasions there is parity, especially when talking about the structure itself, but when the focus is on the broader symbolic. religious and historical role then First Temple is the leading term not just in Judaism but has a broader acceptance. IZAK (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC) It's not about Hebrew names, or we'd be speaking about First House and Second House, it's about applying the names that Jews use, which are more logical since they use them much more, to the generality, to avoid confusion, as the proposal said. It's as good an idea as the one to pick neutral names for disputed geographical regions. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC) In favor: IZAK (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I grew up speaking English and don't ever remember hearing the first Temple called Solomon's Templae - I am sure I heard the phrase or read it, I just do not remember. My memory, and what I am used to today, is people just calling it "The Temple" if people are speaking generally, or "the First Temple" when in the context of a larger discussion of the Second Temple. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. "Solomon's Temple" is probably more used in academia, but it is certainly Bayis Rishon and Bayis Sheini for believing Jews. Let's make a redirect for Solomon's Temple to First Temple (Judaism). Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Agree, almost. Since there are those who, unlike myself, deny that it was built by Solomon, it does not make sense to call it Solomon's Temple. I am unsure about "Third Temple". I guess that would be all right, if the first paragraph points out that it is more of a concept than a number. Depending how you count, one could say there were several "second temples"; one may still yet be built. I am also unsure about putting Judaism in parentheses - it makes it sound like this article is only for Jewish viewpoints. Perhaps Holy Temple in Jerusalem (First). (I would prefer Original, Rebuilt, and Future, but I doubt anyone would go along with that.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Hi Mzk: Firstly there already is one over-all article for all the temples at Temple in Jerusalem that should really serve as a kind of summation page as does the Judaism article for example. Secondly, the Solomon's Temple article as it stands now is a confusing hodge-podge of conflicting data that obscures what the subject in fact is. It mixes terminology and comes of sounding like a dialogue rather than something encyclopedic and definitive. Thirdly, the point of having "Judaism" in parenthesis would be to deal with the vast amounts of Jewish information first about this Jewish temple central to both ancient and later Judaism. Finally, there can be other articles such as Christian views of the Temples in Jerusalem or Islamic views of the Temples in Jerusalem if need be since those religions do deal with that subject, but Wikipedia should not be trying to compact mountains of conflicting information into one or two articles causing confusion. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC) If that's the plan, I have no problem with it.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) One question: Even if one accepts the Greek Chronology, does the year 586, as opposed, say, to 590, have any historical meaning, or is it entirely based on Christian interpretations of Daniel?Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC) The dating I mention here is not final, there are debates and differences even among Jewish Torah scholars. But the "586 BCE" and the "70 CE" dates are the ones in popular use, while not being the final word and not claiming to be. IZAK (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 586 BCE is a scholarly date based not on Christian interpretation but analysis of extra-Biblical records such as those of the Babylonians. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) What I mean is 586 versus, say, 590. The date seems too specific to have any meaning; the Roman calender was certainly messed up for many years. Does anyone have a source explaining who and how this very specific date came about? I would love to be proven wrong.Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Agree As there were no other major Judeo-Christian religions for the entirety of the first temple and 98% of the second temple, it makes sense to follow the Jewish tradition in naming the article. -- Avi (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Agree to rename to First Temple. Adding (Judaism) looks tacky and is quite frankly unnecesary. I also suggest merging Herods Temple and Second Temple. Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) I agree that Solomon's Temple should be moved to First Temple and Second Temple of Jerusalem should be moved to Second Temple. I think Herod's Temple is too long to be merged into Second Temple and should stay where it is (although its lede should mention the Second Temple). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hi Malik: Herod's Temple is just another name for a time period in the Second Temple. Like Solomon's Temple its name implies that it is somehow of, for and by "Herod" when basically what Herod did, and received great acclaim from the Jewish sages of his time (even though he was of questionable Jewish background himself) was to improve, beautify and build up the Second Temple. In modern terminology he gave the Second Temple a huge face-lift and massive upgrade. After all the Second Temple was authorized and even financed by Persia's Cyrus the Great who allowed the prophet Ezra to return to the Land of Israel (Judea) and rebuild it. Yet the common name for the Second Temple is neither Ezra's Temple nor Herod's Temple, although a very small number of sources do refer to the Second Temple and its start as "Ezra's Temple" (1,890 Google hits for Ezra's Temple). Therefore, a way should be found to subsume "Herod's" Temple (as a sub-heading) to the Second Temple (the main article for this this topic) as a clear-cut sub-section and sub-topic, such as Second Temple and Herod or Herod and the rebuilding of the Second Temple to which the Herod's Temple articles should be redirected. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Hi IZAK. I respectfully disagree. Herod rebuilt the Second Temple and greatly expanded the Temple Mount, he didn't just refurbish the existing Temple. The new structure is frequently referred to in English as Herod's Temple to distinguish it from the Second Temple that had existed since the time of Ezra. In my opinion, Herod's Temple is long enough that merging it into Second Temple would unbalance that article. But my view seems to be a minority opinion here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Malik: Let me clarify myself. I agree with you that the material in the Herod's Temple article is too great to fit into one Second Temple article and I am not suggesting that such an attempt should be made. But I disagree with you that Herod's Temple is divorced from the reality and notion of the Second Temple. The problem here is that while in classical Judaism and its sources Herod is given credit and praise for his refurbishment and expansion of the Second Temple, the more secular and Christian sources tend to talk in terms of Herod's Temple because he was so close to the Roman era on the eve of the birth of Jesus and is described by Josephus' historical records. So this needs to be treated carefully. The first paragraph in his article at Herod the Great already tries to bridge the names of "Herod's Temple" with "Second Temple": "He is also known for his colossal building projects in Jerusalem and other parts of the ancient world, including the rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple." In any case in classical Judaism throughout the last two millennia the Second Temple is called just that, the "Bayit Sheni" almost without exception, and this is after all the Jewish Second Temple. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree to rename it to First Temple. As a Jew, I have never used the name of Solomon's Temple, it's just a popular name for Indiana Jones movies, as is coke for the respective brands. You can never speak of the two Temples at the same time, it has to be clarified which it is. --ACogloc 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Provisionally agree I certainly agree that First Temple is not more used in scholarly literature. However, before the switch is made, is there an place where you could check with active Christians who edit? These are pages children in Christian schools use, to write reports and stuff. We don't want to cause unnecessary resentments and I am not certain how pious Christians will react to the change, because the Temple of Solomon is certainly how this building has been discussed in English Lo these many centuries. Ever since Tyndale.AMuseo (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Disagree: We should have only one article about each of the templates, and that can only be a general article, not a "Jewish" or "Christian" article. Therefore we can not use a stricly "Jewish" name as "The First Temple" instead of the better know "Solomon's Temple". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) [7] "Templates" or "Temples"? What are you talking about? The First and Second Temples were only Jewish temples, were they not? Christians did not worship there. They did not even exist! And Certainly not Muslims! The Babylonians and Romans, who were pagan people and had all manner of deities and beliefs now long forgotten, and who destroyed both temples should then have their views about the temples put in in parity with the Jewish views to interpret what the Temples were, which would be absurd. Like having the Nazis give a long treatise about the correctness of The Holocaust and the Auschwitz (you do agree that the destruction of the two temples and the butchery and exile of the Jewish people by the Babylonians and then by the Romans was proportionally and quantitatively on a par with the Nazis or perhaps even worse don't you? If not, check the historical facts.) Likewise, no one in their right minds says that the Vatican (center and holiest place in Catholicism) and the Kaaba (center and holiest place in Islam) "must" have the views of Judaism crammed into their articles and no doubt many Jewish scholars have lots to say about both the Vatican and the Kaaba. So first things first and everything in its right place, and while all views do have their place SOMEWHERE, the starting point for any subject must be what it primarily was and is in its original context and in this case the First and Second Temples were of and for and by the Jewish people as part of their Judaism mandated by their observance of the Torah and its 613 Mitzvot (almost a third dealing with the sacrificial offerings in the temple/s and other observances in them over a span of 800+ years that they stood). Christians and Muslims and other faiths do not claim that the Jewish Temples were "theirs" or "holy" on the contrary, Christianity asserts that Jesus was "the last sacrificial offering" and that there is no further need for a "Temple" of any kind and that the Pope rules as his "vicar of Christ" from the Vatican in the heart of Rome in Italy, while Islam has it first and second holy places in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Only Jews and Judaism fervently cling to the original and ongoing beliefs and religious precepts that there was a First and Second Temple and pray for a Third with the coming of the true Jewish messiah. IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Against voting: I do not think it is proper to start voting about things right away. Wikipedia is for discussion and consensus, and relies on those rather than on voting. This is a Wikipedia guideline! Debresser (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Calm down, take it easy. We are not "polling" because this is obviously very much a discussion that has only begun that also allows for a summation of editors' views. As the song says, "We've only just begun"! These are necessary steps in building and adhering to WP:CONSENSUS before anything is done with such major topics and articles. ("Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making" from WP:CONSENSUS in a nutshell.) IZAK (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Kabbalah and Anthropotheism I need some help with understanding what I have done wrong by adding the section Anthropotheism to Sefer_ha-Temunah. I deleted it, but you could still see it in the history [8] After I first put it in I got an angry email from a friend, who said that I do not understand that Anthropotheism is used in Christian Kabbalah, but is it? He is so upset with me, that he does not even want to explain to me what he meant. I used this source: [9]. I do understand that there's no such thing as Christian Kabbalah, yet there are many books about Kabbalah that were written by Christians for the Christians, and a Wikipedia article about it: Christian Kabbalah. I would not like to use any thesis from Christian Kabbalah in Sefer_ha-Temunah. So once again my question is, if the section I have added and later deleted could be considered coming from so called Christian Kabbalah. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Boaz and Jachin On another topic. There used to be an article on Boaz and Jachin It was redirected to Solomon's Temple where it is not a small sectin. This needs to be a separate article. These columns are not so very significant to Jews, but they became a bid deal among the Freemasons (who themselves are not a big deal today, but they were in the 18th and 19th centuries, and , therefore the history of them is important. And the columns are often a big deal in architectural history of the nineteenth century.AMuseo (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Provide sources and material for such an article then. The pre-redirected version does seem too compelling. Chesdovi (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Wasn't there a Yachin and Boaz in the Second Temple(s) also?Mzk1 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Yes.AMuseo (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Boaz and Jachin are interesting, because while they get a long and detailed treatment in Kings, they are not the focus of very much attention in later Jewish sources. Although a number of synagogues have paired columns explicitly labeled Boaz and Jachin - I mean Boaz and Jachin are carved in stone in Hebrew on stone columns. They get more attention from Christian, masonic and occult sources. I know. Masonic and occult. But the Masons were a very big deal in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Occult sources exist and , therefore, Wikipedia needs to treat objectively objects like Boaz and Jachin that these occult texts treat as magical. And, most significantly to my mind, they figure largely in Christian art and architecture. The old article that you linked is paltry indeed. If you restore it, I'll put up a far better one.AMuseo (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC) FEASTS Of The LORD PROPHECY A new article which is clearly promoting a website and a pov, but I think might redirect somewhere more appropriate? It seems to relate to the topic here Seven Feasts of Israel. My inclination is to take both to AfD but I'd like other input. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Looks like the article with the screaming caps in the title has already been speedied. Seven Feasts of Israel is a giant POV push that looks like it should go, too. Anyone want to get to it before I do? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Feasts of Israel. -- Avi (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Messianic Judaism Here we go again. There's been some edit warring at this article about whether the lead should say that MJ is a Christian religious movement or a movement that combines elements of Christianity and Judaism. It's basically a question of one (maybe two) editor against everyone else. An RFC has been filed. The one editor claims to have sources, which, frankly, I don't have time to verify. Further input requested. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Adding Links to Jewish Sites Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes. My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation. You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible. Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not. Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis. Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)