Jump to content

User talk:Shirahadasha/Archive 1

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Keep up the good work! Here are a few helpful links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fire Star 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your contributions[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see that your contributions are focus on Jewish feminism and the role of women in Judaism. Keep up the good work. I would ask that you keep in mind that there are many views about these issues in Judaism. There are those that believe that feminism is not compatible with Judaism and some say it is close to idolatry. In order for these articles to be of the highest quality they must include all views of Judaism. see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view It is a long read but it is important. Ideally I would ask that you write these other views yourself, but if you don't that is also fine. Nevertheless please understand that when other editors add these views they are not arguing with you or attacking your beliefs but expanding the article to show the full spectrum of Jewish ideas. Again welcome. Jon513 21:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is feminism incompatible with Orthodoxy?[edit]

Feldheim, editor of Tradition, wrote an interesting argument [1] (pdf)that Orthodoxy and Feminism are inherently incompatable.

It was interesting for me to note that Feldman's lead example of how feminism is incompatible with Orthodoxy begins with a non-Orthodox woman describing the pleasure participating in a ritual gives her, and Feldheim goes on to opine that it is a problem with feminism that it focuses unduly on "joy" and "personal fulfillment." Feldheim regards these principles as elements of secular humanism and directly contradictory to Orthodoxy, which he characterizes as focusing solely on duty and obligation. However:

"It was said: Speak to the children of Israel and he shall lay hands [on the offering Lev.1:2-4] -- the sons of Israel lay their hands, but the daughters do not. R. Jose and R. Simeon say: The daughters of Israel may lay their hands, although they are not required to. R. Jose said: Abba Eliezar told me the following: Once we had a calf to be offered as a shelamim sacrifice and we brought it to the women's court and women laid their hands on it. Not because laying of hands applies to women, but to allow women to feel pleased." (Talmud Hagigah 16b)

The halakha on the matter is, of course, in accordance with R. Jose and R. Simeon. As Daniel Sperber notes, women requesting to participate in public rituals obligatory only to men simply isn't anything new. Women in R. Jose and R. Simeon's day were making essentially the same kinds of requests, as women are doing today. And they had exactly the same allegedly "secular humanistic reasons" as today, the very "pleasure" reason that Rabbi Fieldham found so problematic. Since these types of requests are themselves not new, but date from at least the times of the Beit Hamkdash, it would appear that the way that the rabbis responded to them in the days of the Beit HaMikdash might be of interest. They clearly did not respond to them in any sort of "orthodox feminist" fashion, but they also didn't seem to regard them as inappropriate. This is not to say that any particular ruling today should be any particular way. But given that Orthodox public prayer consciously asks for acceptance of "the offering of our lips in place of bulls" (Hosea 14:3), it is perhaps not so unreasonable to consider the way the Rabbis responded to women's requests in the days of real bulls as having some relevance to our attitude, if not any specific ruling, in how we think about women's requests to participate in matters of "the offering of our lips". --Shirahadasha 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


if you can read hebrew well, I suggest you read this essay by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner. He make some very interesting points. It was printed in the weekly magizine Be'Ahavah U'Beenuma by Machon Meir. Jon513 16:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This came out only a little after some unfortunate incidents in which Aviner was accused by two women of sexual harassment. It was a period of great inflammation. Perhaps a period of difficulty seeing things calmly. --Shirahadasha 01:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page[edit]

Hi Shira: It would be nice if you could add some very general information about your interests etc on your user page at User:Shirahadasha so that others can get to know you a little better than just an anonymous "red link" name without any content. Put on it only what makes you comfortable, and it thereby allows other users to get to know you as a member of Wikipedia. Also, please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks and Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 06:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing disagreements[edit]

Hi Shira: Please understand that Wikipedia is open to anyone. Often there are editors who are not familiar with all the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia policies. Or sometimes editors will write something from memory hoping to get back to it but then do not. You should avoid taking it upon yourself to "delete" passages from articles that you do not like with the excuse that it's "Original research violates WP policy" when all it may lack is a source, unless you are absolutely 100% positive that it is a lie, as you did on the Partnership minyan page with the "Liberal Objections". What you should do is to either leave the section where it is and then contact other editors to comment on it and get their input, or of it really stands out as highly questionable move it to that article's talk page, or try to see from the articles "history" page who inserted that section and contact that editor and ask them for sources or whatever questions you may have. Until you gain a lot more experience with editing and maintaining articles. Please note that User:SlimVirgin is a veteran and highly skilled editor so she was able to perform bold edits, but as a newer editor you should not assume her posture for now until you gain more experience editing, this is a good way to avoid a lot of conflicts over editing issues that may arise if you are too hasty with removing edits. IZAK 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note to me was in the wrong place[edit]

Hi Shira: Thanks for your message. Perhaps it was an oversight, but you left your message on my "user" page (User:IZAK) when it should have been placed on my talk page at User talk:IZAK (I have just moved it over). As a rule on Wikipedia never touch any user's page unless they specifically say on that page that they don't mind (some people may even get hysterical and claim that you are "vandalizing" their user page... so you never know who you are dealing with.) Otherwise, in all instances, when contacting any Wikipedian, the only place where messages are to be left are on their talk pages, unless you wish to contact them by Email and they have enabled that feature. Best wishes, IZAK 19:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI about your article/s[edit]

Hi Shira: I am cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Self-promotion which is about your article/s and edits and I thought you may want to be informed, keep looking at that page for any later discussions as well. Best wishes, IZAK 13:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) is self-promoting a particular format of tefilla as practiced by, no surprise, a minyan in J'lem called Shira Hadasha. While no doubt there will be plenty of people fascinated by this development, it is still quite a small-scale thing. Could some others have a look at Shira Hadasha and the innovatively titled Partnership Minyan, and see if they can be merged?

My personal view is that this amounts to revisionism for political reasons (feminism). I'm not personally aware of Orthodox critics of this development, but I doubt this has gone unnoticed in Israel's Haredi circles. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shirahadasha contributions do not seem like those of a new editor, but of some who has experience with Wikipedia. Perhaps there were edits as an anon, or under a different name. I believe that an admin can look into things like that. Jon513 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not too concerned about sockpuppetry or something. Some people edit as anons for months before finally registering. I'm more concerned about a push to have the Shira Hadasha view pushed on multiple pages while it is a very small development. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. This is a rehash of the old Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article (AfD => deleted 25 January 2006) that first appeared as a massive addition to Minyan (viz). In the AfD discussion, I recommended it be pared down and merged with Role of women in Judaism, which it obviously has not been, instead it was resurrected ten weeks later as Partnership minyan, 6 April 2006. It was Anystat (talk · contribs) along with 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs) who were the primary contributors to the "Minyan" additions and then to the "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati" article, and it appears that the primary content contributors to the new article, "Partnership minyan" is/are another one-issue editor, Shirahadasha (talk · contribs), and unsurprisingly, the same anon IP, 165.89.84.88 (talk · contribs). My guess is that Shirahadasha is not "new" because "Shirahadasha" is "Anystat". Tomertalk 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shirahadasha...I wasn't making any judgments about you or your edits. My comments above, copied here by someone else, were in reponse to someone else' statement that you didn't appear to be new to wikipedia. The only judgment I made was that you and Anystat were one and the same, and that that was why your edits didn't appear to have been made by someone new to wikipedia. As for whether or not the Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati stuff is noteworthy, as I've made clear elsewhere, my concern regarding them is exclusively in the interest of ensuring that WP:NPOV#Undue weight is followed. Tomertalk 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NPOV again, especially this section. You are the one who created both Minyan Shivoyni Hilchati (as User:Anystat[2]) and Partnership Minyan (as User:Shirahadasha[3]). Creating the Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati article, a POV-fork of Minyan, is a classical POV-pushing tactic, as is, as it happens, using multiple accounts to edit the same article. Also, since the content was nearly identical to the deleted Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati, creating the new article was a violation of Wikipedia's deletion policy... Furthermore, creating the article there, since the contents are practically the same, looks a lot like trying "hide" the new article. I regard myself as more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, but the "partnership minyan phenomenon" is so insignificant that I think having a separate article on it constitutes "undue weight". That's why I regard the major supporters of the article as pushing a specific POV. Now. All of that said, the fact remains that nothing I said in the statement I was referring to, has anything to do with a judgment of your intentions or status as a POV-pusher. If my regarding you as a POV-pusher is premature, I apologize, but at the same time I think I've outlined pretty well how I could have come to that conclusion. On a somewhat related note, I must apologize for having characterized you as a single-issue editor...in doing so I carelessly lumped together the fact that you and Anystat are one and the same, with the fact that you were a single-issue editor while editing as Anystat. On a completely unrelated note, I respectfully request that you desist from cross-posting conversations to my user_talk page. If you want to ensure that I have the full context for your remarks, please just copy me a link to what you're talking about. Thanks. Tomertalk 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your points one at a time...

  1. The objections to Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati were (based on this discussion):
    1. It was non-notable (<20 minyanim worldwide)
    2. WP:NPOV#Undue weight (since the "movement" is, in the grand scheme of things, quite insignificant)
    3. The name of the article amounted to an endorsement by WP of a specific expression of the overall movement for women's participation in modern orthodox prayer services.
    4. Its contents and existence were POV (as I said in my comments, it read like "unabashèd advocacy").
    5. Its contents were OR.
    6. Its name and resultant content were nothing more than a neologism.
    All of this is what led to my recommendation that it be included as a section, nothing more, in Role of women in Judaism. I don't care to argue about which of those points were "major" and which were "minor", but they were all raised, and none of them were satisfactorily addressed. (To be generous, you did respond [4][5] to my comment, but I did not then, nor do I now, feel that you actually addressed my remarks, rather that you simply responded with unimpressive rhetoric.)
    Contrary to your belief, these points have not been satisfactorily addressed. If I might enumerate how...
    1. There is no demonstration that Partnership minyanim are any more widespread than "Minyanei Shivyoni Hilchati" is/was/are/were.
    2. Undue weight is still highly problematic, given the distribution of the "movement", such as it is, and its influence where it is distributed.
    3. The new name is, instead of one used by a few scattered congregations, now the name used by JOFA. This would be all well and good if JOFA weren't an organization founded with this concept as one of its core raisons d'être.
    4. The article remains stuffed to the gills with POV, although it is much less POV than the original form of the Shivyoni article...
    5. Without decent sourcing (I'll address this issue later), the whole thing still reeks of OR, worse now, however, with the sources given, it looks increasingly like vanity rather than just simple OR.
    6. The name is, as I said above, still a neologism...just this time from a different source.
  2. The assertion that Orthodox and Reform Judaism are "POV forks" of Judaism, etc. is laughable and disingenuous at best, dishonest and disgusting at worst. I'm not sure if you're understanding the terms, so let me clarify what they mean. "Reform" Judaism is definitely a POV fork of Judaism (one might even legitimately argue that it's a form of anti-Judaism), but the article on Reform Judaism is not a POV fork of the article on Judaism. Were the Judaism article "very small", and an editor had come along and decided that the Judaism article concentrated too much on normative Judaism and went off creating an article called "Reform Judaism" all about how backwards and convoluted Orthodoxy were, that would be a "POV fork". The fact of the matter is that all three articles are big enough to warrant separate coverage. The issue is one of refinement, not of neutrality. Please review Wikipedia:Article size. That said, just to head off the most obvious retort at the pass, the Reform movement is over a century old, has a synagogue organization with over 1000 member congregations, and rabbinical college both well over a century old, and claims the largest number of affiliated Jews in the country with the largest Jewish population of any nation in recorded history...hardly a valid subject for comparison to the comparatively non-existent "partnership minyan". All of that said, I agree that coverage is warranted, which is why I have never argued against mentioning the phenomenon. I have simply argued that it needs to be included in such a way that it doesn't end up overshadowing the context in which it exists. The present article does nothing to place the "movement" in context. I have argued from the outset that it deserves decent coverage in Role of women in Judaism, and only there (although mention is warranted in Minyan as well)...a position which I see no reason to change at this point.
  3. I take serious issue with your assertion that the "partnership minyan" is a distinctive approach to worship. The argument that the JOFA definition clearly defines the "movement" is greatly weakened by the Forward article, which makes specific mention of strong variations in the realization of the "movement". If we take the JOFA definition at face value, then the Forward article is rather out of place, and the "neologism" and "NPOV" issues I raised above rear their ugly heads again. The JOFA "definition" is only noteworthy for its wishy-washiness. If there were actually agreed-upon standards as you suggest, their definition might be a stronger argument, but I don't see a strong relationship between their definition and the movement as a whole...especially not one strong enough to warrant naming the article using JOFA's preferred moniker.
  4. As to whether or not Temple Sholom has an article [note the spelling...believe me, as the webmaster and as a Sfaradhi, I would not spell it so as a typo!], I hardly think pointing out that it doesn't have an article of its own is really a good measure in any argument about notability. That said, Temple Sholom is the home synagogue of the founders of National Presto Industries, as well as of Ann Landers and Abigail Van Buren...indeed, of the entire Phillips family, which, through the L. E. Phillips Foundation, is the foremost (indeed, without comparison) philanthropic organization in the Chippewa Valley...so it might well be sufficiently noteworthy in its own right. The question of "balance", however, with respect to the "partnership minyan" concept, has a bigger "row to hoe", to use the idiom, since it represents a serious bucking of trends within orthodox Judaism since the Reform movement so brilliantly (read "unfortunately") succeded in radicalizing Ashkenazi Judaism.

Also, if I might be so bold...your characterization of your contributions to the resurrected article as nothing more than "self promotion" as a personal attack doesn't hold a lot of water when you consider the reasons given for titling that section of the discussion there. Especially in light of your comments on the AfD for Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati, where you, as Anystat argued for the potential for increased notability of the "movement" by advocating a search for "Shira Hadasha", your citing Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences, since there is no actual personal attack in there, looks a lot like a very hollow attempt at subterfuge and intimidation, rather than a valid argument in favor of your position. The same goes for your adding this "warning", which might easily be regarded as trollish.

On a more personal note, it might surprise you (or perhaps not) to learn that I'm probably "lefter" than you, in that I read chaza"l and the documentary hypothesis with equal interest, have no problem whatsoever with "egalitarian" services (including women serving as ba'alot qri'a: although I have a severe problem with "Jewish feminism" when it comes to services, I have no problem with "Jewish egalitarianism"...to wit, I regard the "feminist brakhoth" that begin "Brukha et-shkhina..." (and the like) as an obscene abbrogation of halakha, and a violation of the prohibition against idolatry (pronouncing blessings on the Presence of Hashem, rather than upon Hashem Hashemself)), regard the pronouncements against "qol isha" and at least half of the ideology surrounding shmiruth negià and tzni`uth as nothing more than excuse-making for what I regard as little more than social retardation inflicted as a result of an anachronistically, I know, talibanization of Jewish communities. I regard the argument that women should not be given `aliyoth because of concerns about "kavodh hatzibur" as an indictment against the community passed off as a "good idea". I say this not to diminish the honor of the Sages, but in order to clarify for you that my opposition to your advocacy wrt "partnership minyanim" is based entirely on editorial rather than philosophical grounds. Regards, Tomertalk 07:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...another "noteworthy" thing about Temple Sholom (to which I am not exactly "strongly attached") is that it made national headlines in the 70s when the bnei brith society removed the gender clause from its membership criteria. Supposedly. I wasn't around.  :-p Tomertalk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Judeo-Paganism[edit]

I'm not sure whence you got the notion that I was the enforcement powers on notability and the like...to my knowledge, I haven't "enforced" anything having to do with notability or verifiability since my first interaction with you...neither on this article nor any other. As for "new", the article is going on 3 years old [6]... Judeo-Paganism is no more "my thing" than "Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati". I'm far more interested in linguistics and Polynesian geography. As for the Alternative Judaism article and the groups it discusses, I think they're all completely unnoteworthy, and that the title of the article is completely inappropriate...especially in light of the fact that none of the groups mentioned even bother to claim to be following Judaism. For that reason especially, I would resist your characterization of them as Jewish offshoot groups...they're nothing more than groups of Jewish adherents of "foreign" religions, who try to drag Jewish legitimacy into their beliefs by slapping a pretty label on them. "Messianic Judaism", for example, holds Jesus up as the messiah, and most messianics worship Jesus as their "god", which according to Jewish law is idolatry, and according to chaza"l, unacceptable for Jews. Not only is their religion Christianity, but most of the adherents of "messianic 'Judaism'" aren't even Jews! bleh.  :-p Tomertalk 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD[edit]

Hi Shira and Shavua Tov! See:

Best wishes, IZAK 07:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rachel Adler.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rachel Adler.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the tag for this, Shira. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Hey Shira, thanks for your note and for creating those other articles. They're great! I've added Rachel Adler, Judith Hauptman, Susannah Heschel, and Judith Plaskow to the template. In case you want to add anything yourself, go to Template:Jewish feminism, or you can type in Template:Jf for short, and edit away. I'm going to try to add a bit more to the Jewish feminism article too, time and energy permitting. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...[edit]

Hello Shira. Pleased to meet you. If you're not yet aware of these, please put Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism on your watchlist and come help out at WP:ORBCW. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help on the Talmud article[edit]

We need your help on the Talmud article. Our self-styled "Talmud Defender" is on a rage, deleting every single reference and quotation about historical study of the Talmud. He mass-reverts every single edit I make, every single source offered, and deletes every quote.

I cannot defend this article from his vandalism alone. We need a group of people to protecxt this page. "Talmud Defender" refuses to cite his sources, deletes all sources and quotes that make him uncomfortable, and seems to have no education in the subject at all. This kind of crank is precisely the sort of problem that Wikipedia is most vunerable. Without a group of people actively trying to follow official Wikipedia policy, the article will continue to be damaged by him. RK 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asenath Barzani[edit]

Thanks for explaining how to add to the discussion on whether Asenath Barzani was a Rabbi. I'm a newbie, so I appreciate the advice. Rabbi-m 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Jerusalem[edit]

You make very good points relative to acadamia but you must also acknowledge that such facts relevant to biblical criticism are facts, not hodgepodge. The prophetic talmud view warrants an "according to tag", as this is not fact, it is a prophetic view of history. Editing bibilical scholarship information while adding "[[ ]]" to select words is an attempt to discredit the author, rather than the information.

If you have an issue with the fact please do your own research. I am sure the Talmud does not explain why Jerusalem was believed to be two miles directly below heaven, it may seem silly but it is still fact and does not warrant a "according to tag".


You are not allowed to edit objective facts, regardless of your religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by biblical1 (talk • contribs)

It is not my intention to derail you, however you are changing biblical criticism and intermixing it with prophetic views. Bibilcal criticism is objective scholarship, this pertains to no biases.

You dismissing facts and using ad hominem fallacies to discredit professors is simply ludicrous, if you continue to atler the information a resolution will have to be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by biblical1 (talk • contribs)

Beit Hamikdash article[edit]

Hi Shirahadasha: Thank you for contacting me about the Temple in Jerusalem article. Please see the response/s at User talk:IZAK#Need administrator help in Temple in Jerusalem. Thanks, IZAK 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email feature[edit]

Shirahadasha: Your "E - mail this user" feature is not enabled. Could you please Email me [7] via my user page. Thanks. IZAK 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism[edit]

Hi Shirahadasha: Thought you would be interested in the latest adventure that has started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism (perhaps you may want to join) and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK 12:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your attacks[edit]

I do not understand your motivation for altering my article on the temple, nor your remark "best wishes" on my discussion board. I have responded to your comments in the discussion forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by biblical1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 28 July 2006

User:Biblical1, you do not have an article on the temple. You may have started one, or you may have significantly contributed to one, but Wikipedia, and all contributions thereto, is governed by the inherent philosophies of GFDL. Please review this policy for even more information. Thanks, Tomertalk 05:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject Proposal...[edit]

I noticed that you were a part of the now inactive WikiProject covering orthodox Judaism. I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a new project I'm thinking over that would specifically expand wikipedia's information on mitzvot in detail. What I'm thinking over is that each mitzvah holds enough depth to be an article on its own, and as I just finished writing an article on viddui I noticed that the amount of information on fundamental concepts of Judaism is sorely lacking (as a test I tried to find information on topics such as shacharit and was very dissapointed). If you'd be interested please feel free to leave me a message! תזכו למצוות!--RShnike 01:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Miriam[edit]

Hi Shira, I looked at Miriam and I'm not sure what you're referring to. It took me directly to the Miryâm page. Has the issue been resolved? Tomertalk 05:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amidah[edit]

You wrote that the Amidah is only recited twice daily. Just wondering why, since it really is recited three times daily. See my edit. I was slightly surprised at you making this error. --Daniel575 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Institute[edit]

Did you know of any developments with regards to the sourcing of a kosher red heifer? I recall that one of the earlier candidates had resulted in disappointment. J.christianson 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

last message[edit]

You are a Jew, you are more then welcome to become a Christian. Remember we are supporting the same God. A worship service about supporting the same God that you and I worship is not a bad thing and should be allowed. - Grace be with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.224.155 (talk • contribs)

Yehudah Henkin[edit]

I created a Yehudah Herzl Henkin page- you may want to work on the partnership minyan section.

Pharisees[edit]

In general, I agree with your comments on my talk page. Whatever I reverted, or tried to revert last time, did not to my mind have anything to do with your own views. If I accidently deleted a change you made I apologize. If I have any objections to your edits I will register them on the talk page, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is what happened: someone changed BCE to BC, and you reverted. Then someone else changed BCE back to BC and I reverted. I do not think I reverted any change you made. SO, while I appreciate your note, I am not sure what your point is. If you want to change "New Testament" to Christian New Testament I will not object. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Just noticed your comment on my talk page. You seem to be a contentious figure in the wikipedia orthododox jewish population - I'd be interested in hearing why. Flamholz 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your edit[edit]

I moved your {{test4}} from Talk:68.157.134.176 to User talk:68.157.134.176, and added a speedy delete tag to Talk:68.157.134.176. When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. ST47 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Law[edit]

  • Thanks for the note, I struggled with a few of those disambigs. If I could make a case, I was WP:BOLD and moved it, but there are still some, like the one you mentioned, that don't have a correct landing spot yet. Your idea of making a better spot is probably the way to go. Thanks for the feedback. — MrDolomite | Talk 01:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Ruakh[edit]

Hi, this note is just to let you know that I replied to your comment at my talk page. (Feel free to delete this note once you've read that comment; I just wasn't sure if you're in the habit of watching user-pages you leave comments at.) Ruakh 04:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Editor Review/Shirahadasha[edit]

I've left my remarks there for you...Have you considered inviting comments from a wider range of editors? Even if you expect less than glowing feedback, it may be constructive even if it's a bit of a let down for a while. On a separate issue of minimal importance, is this something you've done bcz it's Elul? Tomertalk 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material transferred from Wikipedia:Editor Review/Shirahadasha editor section:

  1. Why do you think I used the website of some random minor Rabbi as the source for a significant view, when I clearly state in several places that the Jewish Encyclopedia is the source. I hadn't even heard the name of the Rabbi, or of his website, until you mentioned it, so I would like to know why you jumped to that conclusion?
  2. More generally, do you jump to conclusions often, or, on most occasions, do you carefully check your opinion with the facts first?
  3. A reference tag (<ref>....</ref>) in an article gives the source for an assertion; you delete the assertion saying that the source is not given in the article (and that the source is given elsewhere, and is something completely different to the one within the reference tag). Did you read the reference tag? Did you in fact delete it simply because it supported a stance different to your own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)

One's vs. ones[edit]

Are you sure that "ones" is the correct possessive of the pronoun "one" (as you said here)? This page, which apparently quotes Fowler's Modern English Usage, as well as this one seem to indicate that it's "one's," and that "its" is the only exception to the general rule. I've also only ever seen "one's" myself. Do you have any sources saying otherwise? -Elmer Clark 22:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll go ahead and change it back for now. If you do find a source for it though, I'd be interested in seeing it. -Elmer Clark 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think one's/ones is even grammatically correct there. I've changed it to "his" (pending change from some PC-watchdog, of course ;) ) -Elmer Clark 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being quite serious, I certainly won't object, I just couldn't think of anything more appropriate. I don't think you can use "one's" like that, to refer to "a worshipper" (like you wouldn't say "a person do one's civic duty"). "His or her" is fine but kind of unwieldly, and singular their is something I try to avoid. But as I said, feel free to change it to an appropriate gender-neutal term. Also, sorry about all this over one word - I'm a bit of a grammar nerd, and your edit log summary intrigued me :)-Elmer Clark 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen it used as such. Can you cite "ones" used as a personal pronoun somewhere? If you don't mind, I'd like to bring this up at the language reference desk, just out of personal curiosity. -Elmer Clark 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gurary article[edit]

Hi Shira: Could you please take a look at the discussion concerning Conceptual backround: Hasidic dynastic disputes in the Barry Gurary article. See Talk:Barry Gurary#Dispute of content. Thanks. IZAK 03:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosh Hashana[edit]

Shirahadasha asked me: <<< Not sure why you reverted the statement that the holiday always occurs in the Hebrew month of tishrei. The statement is correct. (although it may be redundant.) >>> Yes, the statement is indeed correct, and that's why my comment was simply "revert", rather than "revert vandalism". But it is more than merely redundant. It seemed to me to be inserted in a rather thoughtless and impulsive manner. For example, why did you write "in the month" rather than give a specific date? Even if you want to be vague on whether it lasts for one day or two, you still might have written "at the beginning of the month". Another thing that bothered me was that you put it in the "Traditions and customs" section; not only is it out of place there, but that section is after the "Date" section, which is where it is really relevant. Redundancy can be useful at times, especially to remind a reader of a previous idea which is relevant again to a new idea. But this did not seem to me to be one of those times. I hope I did not offend you, and hope that you'll forgive me if I did. Chag Sameach. --Keeves 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report[edit]

The report for vandalism you put on WP:ANI should instead go to WP:AIV, since it is obvious vandalism. Nonetheless, the user's last edits appear to have been two hours ago, so there is little need to block at the moment anyway, but please use WP:AIV for obvious vandalism reports in the future. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third temple[edit]

No, in fact he explicitly says it's only a synagogue and obviously not a Temple because he doesn't propose taking down anything. It's only relevant to the section of Status of Temple Mount, which also links to the main article of the temple mount. I feel this is interesting to know as it can have implications in the future. Saying it's OR seems to me that the whole section is OR as this deals directly with the section's subject which is the reason I placed it there. If you feel strongly about it and can tell me why... Amoruso 15:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category vote[edit]

Hi Shira: Please provide your view at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 10#Category:Saintly person tombs in Israel. Good Mo'ed. Thank you. IZAK 03:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to delete Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

I have written the following to the nominator:

Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.) IZAK 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer[edit]

Note that he moved Sanhedrin to Synedrion (Judea) anyway. See talk page there. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you added a warning template to Nixer's talk page at 01.07 today. I have removed it because the matter to which you refer had already been dealt with at length (two days ago) and a warning with today's date could give other users an inaccurate impression of his conduct. Regards, The Land 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Good Book[edit]

Hag Sameach!

Do you think it is controversial to claim that Jews call their Tanakh "the Bible?" I don't. Do you think it is controversial to claim that "the Bible" refers only to the combined "Old Testament" and "New Testament," i.e. is a term that refers to the sacred scriptures of Christians (but not Jews)? I do, but this is precisely the claim Home Computer is making on the Bible talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible#Current_layout

Feel free to weigh in. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAha.. yet another. Please disregard this claim as it is untrue. This person has been travelling from user page to user page posting this same thing about me. I do not deny that many Jews refer to the Tanakh as the Bible. I did at one point but it was explained to me and Rubenstein far before this was posted. I'm sorry this spilled out on your user page. --Home Computer 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds[edit]

Hi Shira: What do you make of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Seven Worlds 2? Thanks. IZAK 09:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panentheism[edit]

Shirahdasha says:
Panentheism is the correct word. Compare Wikipedia's Panentheism and Pantheism articles and you'll see the difference. Best.

My fault. I was using my spellchecking toolbar and saw it was unrecognized. Thank you for clarifying. Bobo. 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirahadasha/Archive_1&oldid=1045376248"