Talk:Rabbi/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Pictures of rabbis

Quadell suggested in 2009 that the page would benefit from appropriate pictures. As the text has gotten longer, I agree for both aesthetic and pedagogic reasons. Pictures of rabbis that show the variety of rabbis, by movement, period, gender, and dress, can illustrate at a glance what the very long blocks of texts state--that there are different movements and persuasions and they are producing rabbis of different types.

Query: would anyone find it offensive e.g. to place a picture of a woman Reform rabbi next to a picture of a Hasidic or Haredi rabbi? Would this violate some sort of taboo or sensitivity? Would this "be giving legitimacy" to all strains of Judaism in a manner some think is not kosher?Twelve Manhattan (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

Ha ha. Apart from that, I think this article is about the institution, not about any individual. Unless there was an individual who changed the content of what it means to be a rabbi. I could live with one select example, but think that a gallery is not a good idea. Even if only to avoid the perpetual question, whom to have in the gallery, and whom not to have in the gallery. :) Debresser (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Debresser. If interested, please take a look at the following pages and their galleries: Minister (Christianity)--2 galleries; Nun--2 galleries; Clergy--1 gallery; Imam--2 galleries; Mufti -- 1 gallery. All very nice, I might add. The suggestion that Rabbi because it's an "institution" should not have a gallery would appear not to be borne out by best practices on wiki as demonstrated by these pages. It makes Rabbi an outlier with a deficiency imo that can easily be fixed.

An answer to the "perpetual question" whom to include is, let the wikipedians decide. A gallery can be added to. Be bold. I doubt the gallery will become too large and if it did, it could be dealt with when it happens.

If there is a legitimate disagreement about this, we should err on the side of more information being provided on the page, including visual information, not less, I think. I certainly take your point on not putting the gallery in the middle of a section; can you suggest a better position for it on the page?Twelve Manhattan (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I would be ok with Rabbi Sacks, he's a distinguished rabbi and was the Chief Rabbi of the UK. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sir Joseph. Do you have access to my Sandbox (I'm a newbie and not sure how everything works). On my Sandbox you will see the gallery of rabbis I posted on the Rabbi page and that deBesser deleted. It has a picture of Rabbi Sacks. Let me know what you think. All the best. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I would be OK with the following as descriptive of rabbi. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I notice the Reform woman rabbi is absent along with the Orthodox Rabbanit. What is your thinking for not having their pictures in the gallery? Also the Lubavitcher rebbe is absent. Same question. Thanks for responding! Twelve Manhattan (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I took out the reform ones because they are not famous or notable. Geiger is there to represent Reform and Schechter is there to represent conservative. I took out the Lubavitcher Rebbe because we already have orthodox/ultra orthodox representation. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that famous and/or notable are the correct criteria. It's supposed to be a cross section of rabbinic types. It's supposed to represent what the rabbinate looks like. Btw all the ones included have wiki pages--and are famous and notable in their own right--such as the first Reform woman rabbi to have a synagogue in Israel, the first Orthodox rabbanit. Further, given the newness of women rabbis and relatively small numbers, I'm not sure they've had the time yet to achieve fame.
If the gallery doesn't look like the rabbinate today, it doesn't serve its function. I can see adding to the gallery--such as your suggestion to include Rabbi Sacks--but not deleting rabbis (with wiki pages, no less!) whom some feel should be included. More, not less. To give a better picture of what the rabbinate is. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
I agree somewhat, but we can't include everybody, it will make the gallery too large, so we have to narrow it down. As an aside, it might be better to continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the gallery I am proposing--it includes all of the rabbis in your gallery plus Rabbi Kinneret Shiryon, a reform woman rabbi in Israel, the first with her own synagogue; Rabbanit Malke Bina, an orthodox woman rabbanit; and Rabbi Mark Wildes, a modern activist rabbi. Btw each of these persons has a wiki page of their own, which does two things: it allows people to follow up on their bios, and indicates a certain degree of notoriety (importance). As for Rabbi Schneerson, in my mind we need to show a Hassidic rabbi; whether it's him or someone else is not crucial.

Bottom line--the point of the gallery is to portray a representative sampling of the variety of rabbinic types, which the current page does not do. In doing so, the gallery should strive not to push any polemical or denominational line, either by inclusion or omission, but to be representative of rabbinic types, broadly defined. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

(edit conflict) : I remain opposed to a gallery, for the reason I stated before, that it will lead to unending discussion who should and who shouldn't be in it. Please note that this is one of the reasons that picture collates were removed from ethic infoboxes.
I am firmly opposed to the picture of any rabbi who doesn't look like a rabbi. Form the collection above, only two are distinctly recognizable as rabbis: Kook and Yosef. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Add the Lubavitcher rabbi in the second proposal. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I always welcome your comments Debresser but in this case I am a little mystified. Can you explain what it means to "look like a rabbi"? Do you have a reliable source for this? And is it true that in your opinion Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt"l does not look like a rabbi, and his photograph would not be a suitable illustration for this page? I could ask the same question about any of the pics you object to, but I'll confine it to the Rav for now. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
Please explain what you mean. Do I have a reliable source for what?
Yes, I think that only those three I mentioned are universally recognizable as rabbis. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that a survey is likely to confirm my opinion. Feel free to do a small survey for yourself, let's say on Facebook. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is just showing your bias. Rabbi Sacks looks rabbinical and is very recognizable as being the former Chief Rabbi of the UK. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Why so negative, "bias"? In any case, I don't think he looks like a rabbi all that much. Just a man with a nice beard. He and Mandy Patinkin look very much alike. The latter is not a rabbi, however. I think any claim to the opposite is factually incorrect, and only indicative of POVs.
I think it is time for broader input, and my opinion remains that for this reason and in order to avoid endless discussions about whom to include we should have no picture at all. If there would be universal agreement about 1 - 3 rabbis that is fine with me, but I doubt that is realistic. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Sir Joseph here. Debresser, I was asking for a reliable source for the concept of "looking like a rabbi," as well as the idea that there is "universal recognition" of what a rabbi "looks like." I find the notion that neither Rabbi Sachs nor Rabbi Soloveitchik zt'l "look like rabbis" untenable, just to mention two you exclude from that category. Btw I am asking out of curiosity, to try to understand your position; I am not asking because I believe that "looking like a rabbi" is the criterion that should govern the gallery on this page. I don't believe that. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
Well, such is my opinion. Everything is relative, I guess. I would be very interested in seeing the results of a survey about this. Among non-Jews would be best, IMHO.
But whether you agree or disagree with me, the fact remains that the question, and the question of which rabbis to include in general, will be disputable, and I strongly believe we should avoid all that by not including any photos, or just 1 or 2 that are indisputable.
I asked for input at WT:JUDAISM, and hope some more editors will give their opinion, because this is not something 3 editors should decide upon. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would welcome any and all additional input. I don't agree however that there is a certain number that is required to post a picture or create a gallery; any editor can do that, as I did here. I do wonder why it was deleted without any prior discussion of the matter. In any case, this current discussion is designed to remedy that omission and I welcome it. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
then again it might be in the interest of readers to show a diverse selection, not just those with extra long beards. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this; in fact, I would even show rabbis without any beards. After all, this is a page about Rabbis, not Rebbes, Haredi or Hassidic. They have separate pages dedicated to them. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rabbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rabbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

What do they actually do ?

This article needs to discuss issue such as what Rabbis actually do : working day, duties, are they fulltime or part-time, paid or not, role in the community etc. How does a Rabbi get appointed to a community or temple ? Does he/she have autonomy or have to stick to a set of guidelines ? Rcbutcher (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This is complicated. To be a rabbi, all you have to do is be made a rabbi by a rabbi. You then don't need to "do" anything. I know several rabbis who don't work as rabbis. One's a psychologist, one's a trader, one's a teacher, two run charities. But they're all rabbis. None of your questions have any validity for them. For those rabbis who do work as rabbis, the answer to every one of your questions would be "that depends". --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So what's the point of this article if it all just "depends" ? It needs to discuss this or it's pointless.Rcbutcher (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
In theory a Rabbi is someone who has been granted Semikhah, so it is a kind of academic title in Jewish theology, rather like how "Doctor" was originally an academic title for someone with a PhD. In practice, most Rabbis are ministers of synagogues and most doctors are medical practitioners, to the point where the words Rabbi and Doctor have the modern meanings of synagogue minister and medical practitioner respectively. However, on the one hand there are Rabbis who do not work as synagogue ministers and there are holders of PhDs who use the title Doctor but have nothing to do with medicine. On the other hand, there are plenty of ministers without semikhah and in orthodox Jewry they take the title Reverend in English but are not Rabbis, and likewise there are certain types of medical practitioner - surgeons, for example - who take the title Mister/Mrs rather than Doctor. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The page now has a section on "Functions" with 12 sub-headings that may answer some of Rcbutcher's questions.Twelve Manhattan (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan.

Thanks, that answers my question. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-Rabbi ministers in Modern Orthodox Judaism

In the United Synagogue in the UK (and therefore presumably most other Modern Orthodox groupings worldwide) "pulpit rabbis" who have not taken Semikhah are not considered Rabbis at all. They are considered "Ministers" and take the title Revered in English. Their numbers are declining as most modern ministers opt to take Semikhah and become proper Rabbis. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Rabbi as non-Hebrew (mis)translation of Rav/Reb/Rebbe/רב‎

A rabbi have always been called a Rav/Reb/Rebbe in Hebrew. Strictly speaking, the use of "Rabbi" in other languages has always been a mistranslation. I've rearranged the opening paragraph a bit to get this point across, including a wikilink to the Hebrew Wikipedia article רב‎. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rabbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

When, historically, can we start using the term?

It is stated that the first time it is used it refers to Yohanan ben Zakkai and the source is the Mishnah. Does it imply that before, say, 70 CE the term "rabbi" is positively an anachronism? Please ping me with the answer. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is, sages who lived before that were still rabbis, just that they were perhaps called otherwise by their contemporaries. In other words, it is not much relevant for us, Wikipedia editors. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

Sourcing issues (a lack of references) was mentioned over 4 years ago ("Lack of references in article") when there were apparently 62 references. There are now 74 references yet large amounts of unsourced content. This ranges from tagged (February 2019) sections to unsourced sub-sections, to unsourced paragraphs. Reading things like this:

  • "Today Jewish federations and foundations collect and distribute most charity within the Jewish community. However the rabbi retains the task of teaching the value of charity and often participates personally in appeals for the synagogue and for national and international causes. Role-modeling: The rabbi serves as a role model for the congregation by his or her conduct and deportment. Congregation members are keen observers of their rabbi's personality traits, family life, professional conduct, leisure activities and in general the way he or she treats others. Rabbis are aware of this and in the best case deliberately model their conduct so that it represents Jewish values to the community and to outsiders.", reads like a church pamphlet about Rabbis, or this:
  • "Once acquired, Torah knowledge must be passed on, because it is the heritage of all Israel.", sourced with Deuteronomy 33:4 that states "Moses commanded a law for us, A heritage of the congregation of Jacob.". The source actually only supports "heritage" and not the complete sentence.

The policy Verifiability is not vague: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.

A lot of the material I read is presented as teachings, possibly from a textbook (instructional, assuming it is not pure OR), that is unacceptable.

When challenged: Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. The burden is on any editor, wishing inclusion, to supply a source. Evidence of such questioning is clear with tags and talk page comments.

Unsourced content is rarely acceptable, and might possibly be useful for a student or someone familiar with the subject, but not for the general reader. Paring back material to comply with the three above-mentioned policies (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT) might be a necessity. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the unsourced material is important and sources could be found for it, so I think we should focus on that before deleting. Ar2332 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My "goal" was to call attention to issues in hopes that someone could resolve them. Aside from the tagged sections:

  • 1)- "Functions" section contain seven completely unsourced sub-sections,
  • 2)- The "Ordination" section and two subsections contain a ton of unsourced content,
  • 3)- "Non-orthodox seminaries unaffiliated with main denominations" contains walls of unsourced text,
  • 4)-The "Interdenominational recognition" section is unsourced.
  • 5)- "Women" section is unsourced.

We can argue "importance", which is subjective, but to ensure there is not a bunch of original research we require sourcing so that the information can be verified.

Please note: This article is listed among vital articles and was apparently part of a "Foundation-supported course assignment". At a point (created in 2002) there is an expectation that things would get better. The "Etymology and pronunciation" is largely unsourced and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Inclusion of instructional information ("which is the way a student would address a master of Torah") and puffery ("As a sign of great respect, some great rabbis are simply called "The Rav""). -- This is on a quick glance through, from someone not familiar with the subject, so I am sure one could get a little serious and find a lot of things to correct.

Tags were placed on the article in November 2010, as late as February 2019, and it is now August 2020. While we are not on a specific timeline claims that something is "important" could be construed as meaning unsourced material can remain with such a designation. This is not in any policy, guidelines, essays, or acceptable practice. If editors have interest in the article it needs some work or cropped so that it "somewhat" adheres to policies and guidelines instead of presenting unsourced material. Adding several additional tags as "Multiple issues" would not likely result in improvements so we go to alternatives.

Since this is not an area I choose to edit in, I list my concerns here. This does not mean I cannot redirect my attention (that would involve trimming) but would much prefer someone else (involved editors?) look into this with a goal of sourcing material or removing that which might be original research. It is, after all, an 18 year old article having had 1,001 editors, and far too much unsourced material. Here is a good goal: If material is important, source it with Inline citations, or remove unsourced material. All of this material surely had to come from somewhere and a primary source is better than nothing at all. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Added note: There is also what seems to be synthesis with material presented as a quote in the "Historical overview" section following "This is illustrated by a 2000-year-old teaching in the Mishnah, which observed about King David,". -- Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Just fixed this. Ar2332 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on original research: Wikipedia is not equipped to handle, nor the place for "novel narratives and historical interpretations", and this is what this article currently presents. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Little to nothing here is novel (if you take my word for it), it's just lacking good sources. Ar2332 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackfribes123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabbi/Archive_2&oldid=1194922692"