Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Certainly it is better to "Focus on the encyclopedia, and not on the editors." In my view, most of the discussion focusing on editors has been the unsupported (and probably unsupportable) accusations against one editor for ] ''and'' for ]. I wish that would stop. ] (]) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly it is better to "Focus on the encyclopedia, and not on the editors." In my view, most of the discussion focusing on editors has been the unsupported (and probably unsupportable) accusations against one editor for ] ''and'' for ]. I wish that would stop. ] (]) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
== Two Chabad house AfDs ==
Please see and add your views at:
*]
and at:
*]
Every minor Chabad house does not deserve it's own article. May as well start a series about the thousands of ]s in the world that usually far outnumber Chabad houses in size and membership but who neither strive for nor get Misplaced Pages articles of their own. Thank you, ] (]) 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am becoming very concerned about this user's edits. They seem to consistently have personal opinion/research woven into them and they substitute accepted traditional sources with non-traditional ones when explaining the traditions themselves without clarifying the difference. I will inform the user of this note, but I believe that the user may have an ulterior motive in his or her edits, and they bear watching. I am still uncertain if an RfC is called for, but I would like the opinions of other people who spend a lot of time on Judaism articles. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
This is almost frightening; Newman Luke believes that the New Testament is a valid source for articles discussing Judaism's view on a topic. Please see the edit summary here! -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The New Testament is a valid source for information about the first century. Just like any other thing written in the first century. To discount it is just blatent pov. Jesus was a Jew, allegedly, so too was, at least at first, Paul. Their views are Jewish views, from the first century, just like Josephus is for slightly later, and Hillel and Shammai for slightly earlier. As it happens the only reason I put those references in is because the source article on the Jewish Encyclopedia had them in.
I'm sorry, Newman Luke, but the New Testament was written by a generally anti-Judaic group—including Paul—whose portrait of first-century Jewish practices and beliefs cannot be relied upon. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk05:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please go and read Jewish Christians (the historic meaning of that term), and Ebionites, and you'll realise that generally anti-Judaic is not a universally accepted point of view by any means.
Also, I'd say that in terms of professional historians, a source from the 1st century is somewhat more reliable than one from the 5th, even if the 1st century one is dubious. But that's irrelevant. The citation is made by the Jewish Encyclopedia, a professional encyclopedia, which clearly thought that these cites from the New Testament were valid here. Newman Luke (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
With the possible exception of the author of Matthew, the New Testament writers were not Jewish Christians or Ebionites (both groups fell out of favor when Paul turned the Jesus sect within Judaism into the new religion of Christianity). And none of the authors of the New Testament were professional historians. So what exactly is your point? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the specifics are of this discussion, but the Bible is not considered here - Misplaced Pages that is - as a reliable source for historical events. If it's being used as one, it shouldn't be. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
User Avraham (talk·contribs) (Avi) has a sterling reputation on Misplaced Pages. He is unfailingly polite and fair, and has gained the respect of mainnstream Wikipedians to become an admin because he is reponsible, hard working and abides by all the rules of Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, User Newman Luke (talk·contribs) is prone to undertake a variety of demeaning WP:NPA when he does not get his way, and even resorts to attacks on streams of Judaism, such as Orthodoxy, that he openly and shamelessly has needlessly scorned and denigrated, as discussed at User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this?. IZAK (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Image identification?
Unknown symbol
I just moved a bunch of images to Commons, and one of them was a photo of an unknown symbol in Pittsburgh'sHill District. The uploader was unsure of its meaning and speculated that it was a Jewish symbol, possibly some for of the Star of David. I'm not convinced. Is anyone here familiar with this symbol?--Blargh29 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a new article about the Synod of Mainz (Jewish) in 1233, by User Newman Luke (talk·contribs). Particulalrly bothersome is the concern that it may well be that the sole purpose this article was posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia is because it contians a Takkana that was supposedly stated at the height of the murderous Christian Crusades (to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291) that requests "that no Jew should show bad faith toward a Christian, nor be guilty of counterfeiting" that from experience with User Newman Luke, he may twist it around and then falsely allege that "aha, you see, Jews were showing 'bad faith' to Christians" with no word of the historical context and climate of fear and danger at the time that this was at a time in history when Jews were being mercilessly killed by the tens of thousands by marrauding Crusaders. Would it be possible to review it in order to ensure that it adheres to both the views of Judaism and to WP:NPOV of history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have both moved and completely re-written with a modern secondary source and encompassing the many synods of the times. Of course more work, and further appropriate sources are always helpful. Please see Takkanot Shum and its talk page for more. - Avi (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just undertook a major revision of this article. However, I am not an expert, and would appreciate any more sets of eyes as are available to check my work, make suggestions, and generally contribute. Many thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Um, Kaiser, if by your own self-admission here for the world to read you declare that you are "NOT an expert" on the Zohar what in heavens name are you doing undertaking to do a "Major revision" of this most complex and abstruse, prone to controversy, article for???!!! Would any sane person say it's "normal" for an editor who by his own self-admission is "NOT an expert" to do a "a major revision" on Einstein's Theory of relativity or admits that he's "NOT an expert" on Brain surgery or Astrophysics and then be allowed to undertake a "major revision" of those articles if he admits he ain't no expert??!! You need to perhaps spend time in WP:SANDBOX, try learning more about WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:NORbefore trying to undertake huge jobs you admit you are not qualified for. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Izak, I may not be an expert in Kabalah, but I do speak English and also know how to copyedit. Removing duplicated sentences, poor grammar, uncited assertions, POV, and other gross errors does not require that much expertise, and I have been around WP and WP:Judaism long enough to know how to do that. Also long enough to know that suggesting you check out WP:DICK is probably a waste of time. PS, if you have time for some constructive editing at Zohar that would be helpful. Best wishes, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that (1) you are welcome to see for yourself what "damage" I have done to this unreadable POS article that was a poor cut and paste job from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia: , (one couldn't even find a list of the actual contents of the Zohar in the article as it was written before my edits), and (2) my understanding of WP Judaism is that it is supposed to be a place where we can collaborate on improving articles pertaining to Judaism, ie, a place where one can come freely to ask for help without being pilloried for having the good sense to ask, (3) a helpful hint: next time you suggest someone check out the sandbox, consider scanning their number of edits and contribs first. (4) I'd suggest you review WP:BITE but after five years and 16000 edits I'm starting to feel less like a novice. (4) As a side project, why not take it upon yourself to revert all of my changes to Zohar, Maimonides, Hebrew calendar, Amidah, the Maharal, Talmud, Torah, Torah reading, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and triennial cycle, just for starters. I can give you a more complete list of my major Judaism-related edits if you need it, and I freely admit I am not an expert in any of these subjects either. Maybe I should have waited for an expert such as yourself to donate the gift of his time and wisdom. But then again, im lo achshav eimatay? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, suggest you review WP:DGAF, achshav. Its just not worth it to be angry and/or stressed over this. If you know what you're doing (and from what you said, it appears you do, then DGAF what IZAK thinks. ɳoɍɑfʈ19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Kaiser: Thanks for the list of all the areas you have edited next time I look them up. I don't have limitless time in any case. It is frightening to think that people will undertake to seriously edit subjects that they brazenly admit right here in public that they are not experts in. For example, how do you know when you deal with a concept that may not have a direct quote in an article and you decide to cut it out or re-arrange it that it may indeed be one of the most central and key ones in that article awaiting a source to be written in but in the meantime it's 100% valid and reliable without any citation or source inserted yet? This is like saying, that being handed all the tools of surgery and being dressed up like a surgeon, but lacking a medical school background, you would still undertake surgery, prescribe medication and "heal" the sick. I dunno, I would never do it, but I guess you would if you had the interest even though you lacked your own self-admitted "expertise" (and remember, it was you who came here openly declaring that you are "not an expert" but you were going to edit the Zohar article of all things -- so what did you expect? a medal or to get some rational guidance?) But I suppose given that we have many alert experienced and knowledgeable editors, if you had done any major damage some of them would have picked it up by now or is everyone asleep? Happy Chanuka to one and all! IZAK (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Side note: IZAK - it seems quite out of character for you to rip someone a new asshole in this case. Your Dec 9th edit was IMHO uncalled for in its language. You always have good points but in the future you might want to double check how you choose to express them. Joe407 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Noraft, thanks for your excellent advice. Cram it, IZAK :) You are still welcome to help me improve the encyclopedia, though, starting with Zohar, if you have some constructive suggestions (I am not an expert, and perhaps there are things I have missed). Chag sameach to the project, and my apologies for being quick to anger. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Kaiser: Take it easy. There is no "anger" at work here. You should interpret my comments in light of my pride and expectations for all Judaic subjects. The mere fact that anyone can come along and make edits is a two-edged sword, on the one hand great things can be added on the other hand great harm can be done. Gone are the days when any one editor could roam over all aspects of Judaic subjects, the best we can do is when we come together here we can speak our minds freely and not be told to "shut up" when expressing valid concerns. I doubt if any subject-area on Misplaced Pages tolerates edits over the long term by any self-admitted non-expert editors by now. The days of free-wheeling editorship are long gone and we must all submit to serious oversight and criticism whether we like it or not. I cannot join you as you snap your fingers to come to points XYZ, but at least I can express real concerns here. Have a happy Chanuka! IZAK (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
IZAK, I apologize for my angry comments. I have no doubt that your goal is to have the best possible articles here. What set me off is your suggestion that my editing Zohar was like someone treating it as their myspace page, and your ignorance of, or indifference to, my contributions. (Would it make sense to look at my edits to Zohar before disparaging them?) To me it seems we here should encourage people to ask for help and to know when they are not experts in a subject, and to guide and teach them if we are lucky enough to understand better. That IMO would be more in the spirit of this wikiproject. Finally, I am reminded that "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty," (Prov. xvi. 32), a teaching I for one have continually failed to live by. At the same time, there is Bava Metzia 58b to consider. Of course, IANAE. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a major problem with Ethiopian related issues. Any time scholarly evidence is presented on the sites above suggesting that there was a Hebrew and Israelite presence in Ethiopia and Arabia before 586 B.C.E. it is almost immediately censored. It is clear from the Sheba-Menelik Cycle of the Kebra Nagast that its Old Testament references pre-date the 7th century B.C.E. and the Sabaean inscriptions at Adi Kaweh, Wukro, Ethiopia (below the alleged grave site of 10th century Queen Yodit) twice specifically mention Hebrew as subjects of three queens of Sheba. In conjunction with Chaim Rabin's linguistic work suggesting that there was an ancient Hebrew presence in Asir and Hijaz, and Noldeke's shock at the antiquity of the Ethiopian word for the Ark of the Covenant plus the Sabaean origin for the word "Falasha" and the Beta Israel's word for their house of prayer and other evidence it is unfortunate that no discussion appears to be permitted concerning the very strong probability of an ancient Hebrew/ Israelite population in pre-Babylonian captivity days in Arabia and to a lesser extent Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia and Syria have banned any books suggesting this probability. It is a pity Misplaced Pages editors have followed that example. Jewish interest in Ethiopian Hebraic and Israelite evidence is so disinterested that ironically it has been left to Adolph Eichmann's son to excavate Queen Yodit's alleged grave.
The material Ntsukunyane Mphanya is complaining about being censored appears to be material from the book by Dr. Bernard Leeman, Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship; which is a book whose reliability has come into question. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard for the relevant discussion.) And no, to my best knowledge, no one is suppressing the influence of Judaism to Ethiopian culture -- which is quite well documented in the primary & secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do not use the term "Old Testament"
The correct terms for the Jewish canon of works is Torah for the 5 books of Moses (Chumash), plus Prophets (Nevi'im) plus Writings (Ketuvim). The three are collectively known by the acronym "Tanackh".
The term "Old Testament" is a derogatory description used by and invented by the Christian movement. It Infers that the Jewish holy works is replaced by a new testament, because the new Christian religion replaces the old Jewish religion.
This is called "supercessionism", whereby one movement supersedes and replaces an old one. The same tactic is used by Islam, where it is claimed that Islam replaces both Judaism and Christianity. Historygypsy (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge articles about Judaism usually use "Torah" or at least "Pentateuch" instead of "Old Testament", "Tanach" or "Hebrew Bible" (what an awfull term), and BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. But thanks for pointing our attention to it again, and please replace any occurances of Christian terms by the appropriate Jewish ones whenever you see them in Judaism related articles. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No, "Old Testament" is certainly not a derogatory description, given that the people who use it consider the work to be Holy Scripture and some of them consider it to the fundamental truth. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Torah v. Tanakh (Debresser): Don't Torah and Pentateuch both refer to only the first five books? I would think Tanakh is closer to "Hebrew scriptures," since it refers to the writings and prophets as well as the Law. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: derogatory (Largo Plazo): Yes, Christians think the Hebrew scriptures are authoritative and true, but the term "old" only makes sense if you've already decided that the Hebrew texts have been superseded by a later revelation. So, the term is essentially derogatory, and therefore many Christians have stopped using it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please notice that I had removed my previous post after the renaming of this section to somethng less POV in this edit, because I do not want it to create the false impression as though I am the one escalating this issue. Since my edit was reinstalled, I insist on adding this comment here.
To clarify, I wouldn't call the nomination of the article for deletion anti-Chabad, but Izak's calling it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing" reveals Izak's anti-Chabad POV. Oh well, Shlomke (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How silly, working to IMPROVE the structure of articles, no matter what topic, does not make anyone "pro" or "anti" anything. My record speaks for itself. The only thing that I am against is Antisemitism. Kindly observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Let's try to have a peaceful and calm discussion about what's happening with all the growing pro-Chabad articles and editors and how that affects the over-all WP:NPOV of many Judaic subjects and try to avoid the obvious drift towards a pro-Chabad WP:POV in violation of WP:NPOV that Misplaced Pages should not just become and be seen as becoming another undercover "branch of Chabad" as pro-Chabad editors undertake a by now VERY obvious Misplaced Pages mitzvah campaign in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:OWN. Are you even able to be objective about this discussion or will you insist on taking out the daggers? Did you think this discussion would never come up? Well now it has and try to discuss it in a respectable Wikipedian fashion and not as if it's WP:WAR. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
How kind of you Izak to ask for things to be discussed in a "respectable Wikipedian fashion" by starting of your sentence with the words "How silly". No, you don't just do it here, you do it all the time whenever you get heated up because someone disagrees with you. Your tone in these debates is almost always aggressive, and I know I'm not the only one that thinks so. I know your record very well. There a good reason you never became an admin since 2002. If you'd seriously like to have some "respectable Wikipedian dialog" perhaps you should take the first step back and start talking nicely.
The obvious problem with the way you posted this notice is that you called it "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing". I dont think Yehoishophot was out to POV push here, and you certainly dont need to sound all your alarms by calling serious editors work POV pushing. There are plenty of other ways to post the notice without upsetting others. Shlomke (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has a problem with a heading they can discuss it, but archiving it like this is a pre-emptive strike to shut up discussions, so I am restoring it. It is a nice joke about me not being being an admin. The answer is simple, I have never wanted to be one and never will want to be one, I am happy as an editer because being an admin involves too many other responsibilities. It is typical of pro-Chabad editors to resort to strong-arm tactics when things don't go their way and this discussion is far too important to shut-off like this especially when there are important AfDs on the go. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED, thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
IZAK, this isn't a "discussion"—it's an exercise in mud-slinging. I archived it not out of any pro-Chabad sentiment, nor to ridicule you, but because it's become a shanda. I respectfully ask that you let this thread die. Please, no more accusations or counter-accusations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You know Malik I am truly amazed at you of all people doing such things, to cut off debate of a legitimate issue that involves the future of Judaic articles on Misplaced Pages because of a "shanda" now that is what I call a good example of a few things such as violating WP:NONSENSE (what "shanda"?) and WP:NOTCENSORED (since when do we get censored by our own editors?) There was once a time when there were very few articles on Judaic topics, and Misplaced Pages welcomed them from all comers and givers. But now there is a huge amount of articles and a huge amount of those are starting to show the depth of the penetration of pro-Chabad editors into almost every article they touch by adding links to Chabad sites and the time that's then spent by other editors to remove or at least reduce those links. Then you have the pro-Chabad articles that read like virtual commercials in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and worshipful hagiography with articles ever so skillfuly and artfully being "sculpted" to suit the pro-Chabad POV editors. You know I have been around Misplaced Pages for a long time. I have argued against all sorts of POV editorial distortions, be they Karaite, Reform, secular Bible critics, Christian Evangelical editors etc who have come along with obvious POV agendas to "shape" ALL Judaic araticles THEIR way or stack the cards in their favor. I have fought antisemitic editors with nefarious agendas, and even got into trouble for that in my first year and I learned my WP:Wikiquette lessons the hard way. I have a good eye and judgment for these kind of trends and developments. I do not act blindly and arbitrarily. And I think the time is right to make a big issue of this, TO GET INPUT FROM OTHERS, not just me spouting off, the pro-Chabad editors are already calling me names in violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF with daggers drawn, but it is fair at this time, we are not babies we can handle it and place the pro-Chabad editors on notice with their HUGE online editorial back-up and contributors that Misplaced Pages will not allow what by now is a virtual conspiracy to hijack the Judaic sections of Misplaced Pages for the online Chabad bandwagon. What about this don't you get Malik? Am I speaking Chinese or some alien language not familiar to trustworthy Wikipedians like yourself? In the coming days, weeks and months I will be dealing with this issue fairly and openly and anyone is free to partake in DEBATING THE ISSUES but please do not come along and shut off discussions because you or anyone else finds them to be a "shanda" or whatnot that makes you squirm. So what? Have you not heard of WP:BEBOLD? Now is the time. To wait longer risks handing over the keys and the direction of the editorship of Misplaced Pages's Judaic articles to a virtual cabal of pro-Chabad POV warriors who are single-minded and brook no opposition as they fight any and all opposition to any comment or editing that they imagine runs counter to their very obvious party line. As I have said and say again, Misplaced Pages is NOT Chabad.org in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE and more. So welcome aboard the debate and hopefully we can arrive at FIRM GUIDELINES for more balanced and prototypical articles about Chabad AND the ever-growing Chabad influence on Misplaced Pages that puts things in perspective and not skewered to Chabad's obvious one-sided POV. Thanks so much for your understanding, IZAK (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
By all means raise the issue. But please refrain from using POV language as you did before, because that does not serve any cause. Debresser (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Expansion of Jewish Revolt-related articles.
Hello all, I just wanted to let any interested editors know that I'm currently involved in a major expansion of a dozen articles related to the Jewish Revolt including biographies and events.
Additional expansion of the above articles will continue, along with addition of new articles for more of the high priests, and other figures/events I may uncover.
That said, I could use some help. If someone can add in the Hebrew-alphabet names of those who do not have them, that would be great, as well as add in any other information that will fill these articles out. I'm adding infoboxes, succession boxes, and references as I go so that the pages will be of encyclopedic quality (although the stubs will still need more content). Thanks in advance for your help. ɳoɍɑfʈ08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
this is a quite problematic article, but, as above, this section heading should be retitled. People can have different points of view & still work together, and using language implying lack of regard for Misplaced Pages doesn't help things along. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has a problem with a heading they can discuss it, but archiving it like this is a pre-emptive strike to shut up discussions, so I am restoring it. It is typical of pro-Chabad editors to resort to strong-arm tactics when things don't go their way and this discussion is far too important to shut-off like this especially when there are important AfDs on the go. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED, thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
IZAK, this isn't a "discussion"—it's an exercise in mud-slinging. I archived it not out of any pro-Chabad sentiment, but because it's become a shanda. I respectfully ask that you let this thread die. Please, no more accusations or counter-accusations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk03:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Many editors have tried to introduce balance into WP's Chabad articles, with very little success. As this discussion progresses the reason for that lack of success will become very clear. To accuse IZAK of ganging up on Chabad editors (three seem to be participating in this discussion already) is not helpful. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Chabad, POVFORKs, and alot of discussion
Wow. I didn't realize what a can of worms I'd open up when I AFD'd "Public Menorah". I see that the gamut of Chabad related articles are being reviewed and revised.
Part of the power of the Misplaced Pages community is that all voices can be heard. I'd just like to remind everyone that we will all gain by using reasoned and rational voices and being polite while we disagree. And may the best logic and adherence to WP policy win. Joe407 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact the main Chabad article is one of the biggest problems, and it reads more like a promotional brochure for Chabad than an encyclopedia article. Many editors have tried to make important changes for balance, and all have failed. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Stop talking about other Editors
Almost every post above consists of two parts, talk about the articles and ad hominun attacks about the authors. Unless you know enough about an editor to write a biographic article, don't mention him or her at all. Rebele | Talk03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If a particular editor is particularly hot-headed on a subject then it may well be necessary to name them. I'm not sure what your point is and why you feel the need to admonish frequent contributors to this discussion page. JFW | T@lk23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
NB: in an ad hominem , which is a logical fallacy, an attempt is made to disqualify an argument based of some (actual, or perceived) personal defect in the person making the argument, instead of discussing the content of the argument. I have not seen that fallacy made in the discussion above. Could you point out the ad hominem? 173.52.187.133 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wictionary lists two senses for the word ad hominem, The first, as you rightly point out, is "a logical fallacy." The second is "A personal attack." For further details, see the article Chofetz Chaim. Rebele | Talk20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you stop randomly firing off mussar at the entire Wikiproject. The fact that someone's editing pattern or somesuch is under discussion does not imply a "personal attack". A "personal attack" would mean that you discredit a person's views because they are Sefardi, from Australia, or Chabad.
If you are so disturbed by these discussions, either become a constructive participant in these discussions and try to moderate them, or don't participate at all and direct you attentions elsewhere. JFW | T@lk22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That is a wiki-redefinition in a poor quality article that needs to be re-written. The link I gave is WP:RS. I see no ad hominems in this discussion. The definition you want amounts to the same as WP:NPA; and if that has been a problem here, I have missed it. You still have not specified the statements to which you object.
Certainly it is better to "Focus on the encyclopedia, and not on the editors." In my view, most of the discussion focusing on editors has been the unsupported (and probably unsupportable) accusations against one editor for WP:PAand for Lashon Hara. I wish that would stop. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Every minor Chabad house does not deserve it's own article. May as well start a series about the thousands of shtiebels in the world that usually far outnumber Chabad houses in size and membership but who neither strive for nor get Misplaced Pages articles of their own. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism: Difference between revisions
Add topic
