User talk:JerseyRabbi

Welcome!

Hello, JerseyRabbi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Would you mind reviewing the recent edits regarding the rôle of the Prushim as ancestral or not to both Rabbinic and Qara'i Judaism on List of Religions? Specifically, I've found myself in conflict with User:Aaron Solomon Adelman who insists that Karaite Judaism rejects all of Pharisaic philosophy, rather than simply the legitimacy of the rabbis' redaction of Torah she-b'alPe as Talmudh. I doubt either of us, he or I, would regard you as a halakhic authority on any day of the week, but I assume as a rabbi you have access to citable impartial texts that cover the topic, which might be useful in shedding much-needed light on this topic. Regards, Tom e r ^talk 07:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on Tomer's talk page .JerseyRabbi 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary Mark-Up

Thanks for the welcome. I have a question that I hope you can direct me. I've read every help page that seemed relevant without finding it. I understand what to put in the edit summary box in general. But I've noticed on some page (for ex. I was on a particular Article for Deletion page and when I checked the history to see how others noted their entries, I found a large number were written with an Arrow that links to the article for deletion entry followed by a link to the main article. I how to do this manually with links (like this: →Orthodox_Messianic_Jews) but since it seemed so common, I wondered I am just missing some shortcut (like the 4 tildes for a signature) to do this as well. Thanks so much! JerseyRabbi 06:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. The difference in the edit summary description is generated automatically by the system; there's no shortcut that you need to use. The key to when it generates the arrow that you noticed is whether you are editing the whole article or just a section. If you edit the whole article, then the system will just insert the edit summary you provide. If you edit a section (i.e. by clicking the "[edit]" box on the right side of the section, it will automatically add the section title at the start of the edit summary. The idea is to let people know that you are editing a particular section rather than the whole article.

The system works for regular articles. It's less meaningfull when you edit things such as individual articles for deletion (AfD). You can edit these pages by clicking "edit this page" or using the edit box on the side of the page. However, the AfD page only has the one "section", so the edit summary subheading doesn't really give any useful information.

Hope this makes sense, and please feel free to ask any other questions (though I can't promise I know the answer).--Kubigula (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. It makes complete sense and I am using the system the way you described right now. Much obliged. JerseyRabbi 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUC Links on the Rabbi Page

I noticed your removal of the links I added regarding the Hebrew Union College on the Rabbi page. Your note said you thought they were "self-advertising." While I am an alumnus of HUC, I want to clarify that the links were put up for one purpose: To give an actual citation to a claim on that page. Nearly the entire rabbi page has no citations whatsover. In fact the notes I added to outside sources are the only ones in the article. For someone to claim that Reform and Reconstructionist rabbinical students study sociology and pastoral care should be verifiable. Where is a better source for verification than the school's own course listing for the students? Immediately above in the Conservative Rabbis section (just to pick the first example I see), there is no citation backng up the claims of wha the students study, that women are being ordained, etc. It is listed only based on the author's word. I wanted to make the first small step in putting in citations. If i go tackle that section, JTS wll surely be the first web site I look to verify any claims. So I completely understand your initial concern, but I think these links are the 1st of hopefully many dozen that will verify the various statements made in this article. All the best. JerseyRabbi 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JerseyRabbi: Welcome to Wikipedia. There is a correct way of citing sources and articles. It is not done the way you did it. See WP:CITE about this subject. Thanks, IZAK 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I will certianly adjust the citations to include the references at the end of the text and make sure the format is consistent with Wikipedia style. If I might be so bold as to share a personal reaction from a relative newbie to a veteran, extremely active editor: My citations may have been misformatted, but they certainly were placed with the best of intentions to improve the article. The Rabbi article is completely lacking in substantiated claims. I made a first attempt - and that was what drove me to actually create a professional log-in name to do so. As I was reading articles other articles from the link you sent, I came across one that said we should always assume good faith that someone is trying to help the article, not hurt it. Simply deleting my citations was a bit offputting to me and if another user hadn't restored them so quickly, it might have made me very reluctant to continue editing. I know you were simply trying to keep articles free of perceived biased clutter and (I assume) that was not your specific intention. Since I don't imagine there are a ton of Reform Rabbis editing Wikipedia, I'd think my contributions, however tiny, might be valuable. The advice you give immediately above in directing me to a helpful style sheet so I can adjust/modify the work I contributed is exactly the pro-active positive approach that will encourage me to edit and post and seek advice from veteran editors. Maybe others will join me in substantiating the Rabbi article so it isn't simply a collection of individuals unsourced claims. Again, I appreciate the link and will work in the next week to adjust all my citations properly. Have a great day! (and an early Shabbat Shalom). JerseyRabbi 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive vs. reform Judaism, request for comment

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism to discuss the name used to refer to progressive/liberal/reform Judaism and the organization of the articles. Your perspective as an HUC-JIR alumna/us(?) would be appreciated. If you know of other editors with relevant expertise, please consider asking for their input as well. Thanks, Egfrank 04:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join project

I wanted to invite you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism - the project is dedicated to improving articles covering the progressive/reform/liberal movement in North America, UK, Europe, Israel and the rest of the world. Egfrank 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Dallas, Texas

I saw that you had contributed to articles on Judaism in Dallas. Do you have any contributions, or ideas for the article History of the Jews in Dallas, Texas. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice. I appreciate any comments you have. Thanks again. Happy Chanukah! Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the typo fix

Thanks for the typo fix on Progressive Judaism - and please feel free to make more extensive edits if you feel they are merited. Egfrank (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed your confirmation section rewrite - that was really a nice job. I never thought of it as a group experience parallel to the individual experience of bar mitzvah, but it makes sense. And considering that as Jews we live our relationship to God as part of a community and not just as individuals, very appropriate to have both. By the way is there a citation we could add so that someone who wanted to go find out more about the idea could look it up? Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Saul Kaiserman do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of the standard templates that comes with twinkle and is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings, so you might want to take up any objections you have with them. I felt it was appropriate in the context --Closedmouth 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mateek

I've added a user page Mateek. Please don't interfere with my NPOV. You are from a section of Judaism, and don't speak for all Jews. I believe I can speak with higher authority on this matter. I display misinterpretations of the Hebrew Bible by Christians [Disputations], and one by Jews on that same page, about the book of Daniel. It doesn't take a college degree to read Isaiah until it's comprehended. You made a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateek (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Please read my repy to your insinuations on my talk page. Mateek (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emanu-El

In general synagogues with common names (e.g. Beth Israel, Emanu-el) should have article titles that name the city and state (or city and province or city and country) they are in. However, if they have a unique name that is not necessary. I moved a number of the existing Emanu-El articles to more standard names, and updated the disambiguation page to reflect that. I didn't bother changing the rest of the text, as it didn't lead to any actual articles. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the rest to conform to the standard, re-organized them alphabetically, turned all the non-articles into live links to the organizations' websites, and added a few more that popped up in a cursory search. I plan to eventually make it much more complete, along the lines of what I've done at Beth Israel, including creating articles on all the notable ones. Does that satisfy your concerns? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 02:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Largest synagogue

First, let me say in all sincerity that I truly, truly do not mean to be oppositional, ornery or in any other way uncongenial. The thing is, a lot of what is written about synagogues is simply not accurate. Emanuel, for example, never seated as many people as Dohaney Street, which was sammer than Orienenburgstrasse. But these were the great cathedral synagogues. More to the point, most people who publish articles on synagogues (i.e. Sacred places) are completely unaware of the scale fo the great Hasidic synagogues? Have you seen the new Ger synagogue in Jerusalem? It seats over 8,000. Belz Jerusalem is almost as big. I would like to find a good source on the size of the huge Satmer synagogues in Williamsburg and New Square. Perhaps you could drop in for mincha one day and write them up. To help clear these claims up, I improved the "biggest" section at synagogue. And because there were similar claims about the oldest, I worked on that , too. And added a page Oldest synagogues in the United States because a lot of synagogue web sites and wikipedia pages were making sincere but inaccurate claims about that, too. I do hope we can work together on this.Elan26 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

I do hope you know more about chasidim than I do and can help out on the size issue. I just went to look and ina quick search cannot find a source for the Ger synagogue in Jerusalem. the Belz you cannot miss , you see it on the left on the drive into the city form the coast. but Ger? Satmer?these need sources. Architectural historians do not wirte about hasidim.Elan26 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Claims of "oldest" "largest" etc. are always problematic. For largest is it by seating, building size, membership, regular attendance? I added a specific reference on the Temple Emanu-El article with a citation to clarify the claims for this particular synagogue. Then I went back and added a qualifier since you raise important points about some of the newer Hasidic synagogues. I don't much about Hasidic synagogues so I can't verify any claims. Also, I like your 1st pass at the Oldest Synagogues articles. Very nice work. JerseyRabbi (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my doubts about your wording. Even in terms of cubic or square feet (or meters) I have a hard time believing tht it is larger than the garguantual Belz Jerusalem. I have been in them both, and cannot imagine that Emanuel can be larger by any measure.Elan26 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

I guess in true Wikipedia fashion, find a source that verifies that Belz is larger (I did some googling and found very varied info - unclear what someone means by "largest" in most citations - seems to be seating). Until then, the sources and general consensus is the Emanu-El is the biggest. I am sure someone will build a bigger synagogue at some point - when they do, we can edit the article. And the current wording says, "often referred to as..." which removes that stamp of absolute and even veracity - something can be referred to as the biggest synagogue when it is not the biggest synagogue at all. So even if Belz is bigger, Emanu-El is still "often referred to as" the biggest. I don't think this is a particularly big deal either way. I have no attachment to Emanu-El being the largest. JerseyRabbi (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACJ

Hello Friend and thanks for your kind message. My מטלה is to not only limit vandalism but also fringe information - I found the other editor's use of weasel words coupled with no citations problematic. All I think the line needs is a source that shows the ACJ petered out by '67, or that they only had a period of any influence or activity for the two decades from the early 40s. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi. I'm still kind of new here. Recently, I stumbled onto Who is a Jew? and have read through the lengthy archives of the article. I think the title of the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, what are your thoughts? I think it should be merged with Jewish identity but from what I've read there seems to be a vehement push in one direction from either Chabad or Orthodox editors that neglect NPOV. Your thoughts are appreciated.

Jim Steele (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Judaism/Information

Portal:Judaism/Information, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Judaism/Information and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Judaism/Information during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- -- -- 02:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JerseyRabbi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]