This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Thank you, IZAK, for bringing this to my attention. What IZAK said is correct, we do have many templates for individual aspects of Judaism, but I believe that this would go nicely in articles which do not really fit into other templates. The template has a bit of (not really)POV problems (,but problems with the choice of links) , which will have to be discussed if it is kept. I don't believe that Ovadia Yosef merits inclusion in this template any more than the Vilna Gaon, for example. However, this template should only be used in places where no template like {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}} or {{ JewishLifeCycle}} would be more direct. E=MC^2 T@lk 01:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As anyone can tell from a cursory glance, right now it's huge. I didn't realize how big it was gonna be until I got done with it (which took a number of hours :-p) and I agree, there's stuff that ought to be excised. What's here is my proposed starting point. Tomer ^TALK 10:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

See Binary search tree for above...what next, the Evolutionary tree, or even better, the Tree of Knowledge? The plot thickens! IZAK 03:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Anytime you're willing to stop being a 2-bit whiner, I'm ready to resume rational discussion. Tomer ^TALK 04:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh Tomer, go ahead, I thought you figured out already that I was "Funny"...you just got me going. I am still waiting to be "enlightened" by what you have in mind, so please EXPLAIN in detail how, what you think you would like to do, would work here on planet Wikipedia. Go for it To' old chap! IZAK

Why are these templates some sort of mauve? Would dark blue for the headers, and alternating light blue and white for the lines, make more sense? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What's a "colour"? What's mauve?  :-p Tomer ^TALK 07:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

P.S., I don't care about the colors so much, but I think the current scheme is in rather poor taste...I've wondered whether or not the original color-chooser might not have been colorblind--although I think the color choices in a lot of other templates throughout wikipedia are in rather poor taste as well...see Template:Islam and Template:Christianity to see what I mean. Tomer ^TALK 07:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

So how about various shades of blue? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. You know I'll let you know what I think. :-p Tomer ^TALK 20:33, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia! It is not a "scholars' convention", nor is it meant to do anything but be a free repository of information! Templates and categories are around to make life easier. We must think in the interests of the casual browser of the encyclopedia. The question that should be dealt with here, and only this question, is: "Is this template making it easier for people to access Judaism-related articles? How can we make it better?" E=MC^2 T@lk 18:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to stall the development of this particular template too much...but I'm thinking now, hoping that those following this development proposal are familiar with mathematical tree-diagrams, will be able to figure out what I'm proposing now...

This is a proposal to overhaul all the Jew/Jews/Judaism/Jewishness/J* templates. What I'm thinking is this:

• Jew
  • Jewish Languages
  • Jewish Ethnic Divisions
  • Jewish History
  • Jews by Country
    • Israelis
  • Judaism
    • Jewish Holidays
    • Jewish Philosophy
    • Jewish Religious Texts
      • Books of Torah
      • Books of Nevi'im
      • Books of Ktuvim
    • Important Figures in Jewish Religion
    • Jewish Life Cycle
    • Jewish Denominations
    • Jewish Interfaith Relations

Where each of these are the various templates. I would like to see the Jewish Holidays template (which is, contrary to what has been said here previously, far from exhaustive) and the Jewish Life Cycle template revamped, and possibly turned into {RIGHT} templates rather than {BOTTOM} ones. What I'm thinking is something along the lines of a hierarchy of these related templates, where, for example, the JEW template would have a section of "related article series" for languages, ethnicities, history, national-origin, & judaism; etc. Thoughts? I realize this is something of a rather extensive overhaul. Maybe we should shoot to be done with it by Shavuot?  :-D Tomer ^TALK 23:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think these ideas are good in general; turn them all into complete templates, put them on the right. However, templates shouldn't overlap each other in links; rather, each template can point to a main article for the other topics. Thus the Jew template could point to a Judaism article, and there one would also find the Judaism template which links to everything under Judaism. Similarly the Jew article could point to the Jewish languages article, where one would also find the template linking to all the languages. The Judaism template would point to Jewish holidays and Jewish lifecycle articles, which would also have the more restricted Jewish holidays and Jewish lifecycles templates etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was proposing. Obviously I left out several things that would remain as sections in Template:Jew, but what you're saying is what I had in mind. Tomer ^TALK 23:48, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

To develop that point just a bit...for example in Template:Judaism would be a link to Jewish religious texts, which, after it's written, will feature Template:Jewish_religious_texts. In Template:Jewish_religious_texts in which, among other things probably, will be links to Torah, Nevi'im, and Ktuvim. In Torah will be Template:Books_of_Torah, etc... Tomer ^TALK 23:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Tomer, at this point, please do not assume that what you propose will be acceptable. You still need to demontstrate how what you propose will work, and you have still not given a single example where else on Wikipedia anything like what you propose exists at all. IZAK 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Jay: I think that according to what you describe you will be defeating the purpose of any type of template which is to give on-the-spot information to related topics and provide easy links to relate articles, and not to act as a "collection of links" to other sub-sets of links, which would make the usage of such a template to cumbersome and frustrating. When did this dialogue shift from introducing a "Judaism" template to creating an all-inclusive jumbo template that will be "top-heavy" and functionally useless? IZAK 20:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Do all these subjects need to be connected? It seems that now you are taking the opposite tack, instead of focusing on creating a Judaism template only, you really do want to include every topic under the sun here..what is going on here? IZAK 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well...um... "seems" is the operative word, since that's the exact opposite of what I'm proposing. Let me clarify: instead of Template:Jew including 3 lines for Jewish Languages, and 3 lines for Jewish Ethnic Divisions, and 3 lines for Jewish Denominations, and 10+ lines for Jewish history, have a section at the top of Template:Jew to direct ppl off to other lead articles for such sections, which will contain the various templates relevant to each field in the sub-lead articles. Tomer ^TALK 02:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Where else is this done on Wikipedia? This is beginning to sound like a "scholars convention" with "self-referential" templates that link to each other and would only be of interest to the "scholars" rather than "lay-people"...This is more like an invitation to join a maze for the average Wikipedia reader...you have managed to confuse me. IZAK 03:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• In this respect, I agree with IZAK. <grandfatherly voice>I have not seen templates linking to templates in all my time on Wikipedia.</grandfatherly voice> A template is meant to link to articles in its cateoory. If some of the articles happen to get to articles with different templates, that is all well and good, but wea template is for its relevant topics only. E=MC^2 T@lk 21:27, 11 May 2005
• I happened to like the first idea a lot better. The template as it is now does a perfectly good job in filling in the holes of all the other templates. E=MC^2 T@lk 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

IZAK 03:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

No. and you're funny, even when you're trying to be demeaning. look up binary search tree. Tomer ^TALK 03:28, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I KNOW I'm funny, funny that it took you so long to find out, oh, and now you want us to study astrophysics to understand you? What next, a class in Kaballah as an "introduction" to Judaism..? IZAK 03:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with defining Judaism as a "religion" like Christianity or Islam is that Jews are NOT just a religion, we are more like a tribal people, and there's a lot of overlap between "religion" and "culture." A tribe is sometimes anthropologically defined as a group that has these five criteria: (1) common land of origin, (2) common ancestors (mythical or real), (3) common language (or at least some common words used by everyone), (4) common religion or belief system, and (5) common customs revolving around holidays and foods. We Jews fit all 5 criteria. Also, we are matrilineal for membership in the tribe, but patrilineal as to membership in "clans" (kohen, levi, Yisroel). These are also common tribal customs, i.e., one must either be born into it or adopted into the tribe or clan, one cannot join just by believing in it as with other religions. (In the case of kohen or levi, it is entirely based on geneaology and one cannot be a kohen or levi except by birth.)

So nu, we are a people, and "religion" is only part of it. "Atheist Christian" or "Atheist Muslim" might be an oxymoron, but "atheist Jew" is not. I would therefore vote for including links to things like secular Zionism, humanistic Judaism, etc. – perhaps with an explanation somewhere about the tribal nature of being a Jew. At the very least, "Jew" SHOULD be linked!

One reason for including such links is that non-Jews tend to think of Jews only in terms of religion (as in "Catholic, Protestant, Jewish") and are genuinely puzzled by Jews who are not "religious" by their (gentile) definitions. And yet, they look under "Judaism" for answers to such questions because it never occurs to them to them to look for "secular Jew." Maybe this is already discussed somewhere on Wikipedia – if yes, then it should be linked to the template somewhere, I think.

Also, I think "Sandaq" should be cross-referenced with the spelling "Sandek" because that is the more common spelling in American Yinglish. Ditto for a lot of other Hebrew & Yiddish terms. The preferred academic spelling is not the way most Americans will spell the words when searching for them, and it's not how they are usually spelled in novels and other literature. We want to be helpful, not obscure. rooster613

• Bravo rooster613 for your crystal clear points here, I think that Tomer is overlaying his perceptions and technical terms and academic jargon on the Jews & Judaism issues here, and your prescient and wise comments reveal his fatal flaws! IZAK 07:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I beg your pardon? My what? I happen to pronounce qof differently from kaf. Is that a "fatal flaw"?! Or is not being a native-Yinglish speaker what you're talking about? Or not ashkenazi? Seriously, what on God's green earth are you talking about? Tomer ^TALK 09:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Since User:TShilo12 seems to be tinkering with the template, I would like to state again, that I think the template looks to me like a fallen "bloated blimp waiting to explode" or a " misbegotten hippopotamus" of some sort...because honestly now, do we really intend to place this monstrosity on Judaism-related pages just because there are similar "templates" to it on Wikipedia? Even worse, the template is a mess! Here are some over-all observations worth noting:

1. Under its main name of "Judaism", the template starts off with Jewish philosophy. Question: Since when is the "onset" of Judaism a " Philosophy" as this "ordering" implies? In truth, Judaism can be set to begin with one or all of (both chronologicallly and theologically correct and true): The Torah – Given at Mount Sinai (see Shavuot), and/or Abraham and/or Moses (see Ten Commandments), and/or with God himself (see Creation according to Genesis) commencing with Genesis 1:1...indeed ALL of the aforementioned are true, but to give an impression that "Jewish Philosophy" is at the "head" is definitely false. The "philosophy" (a notion from Ancient Greece) was "invented" much later in time.
2. God is a subject of "Jewish Philosophy"...huh? Does not the Torah teach and Judaism believe that God is the CREATOR of the Universe and the source of all life? Again, does not God deserve His own major "section"? (I mean we are talking Judaism here, this is not a TV quiz show with "multiple choice" after all).
3. Thus it follows from the above that, if anything, the template should start with who "God" is in Judaism (see Names of God in Judaism) and connect it next with "Religious Texts".
4. Then, after the "Religious Texts" should be the Jewish holidays, because it is from the main text, the Torah that Jews know that Judaism requires them to keep and observe Shabbat and the Holy Days, commanded to them by God.
5. Next should be "Jewish Life Cycle" for similar reasons to above, since the ONLY way Jews KNOW what they are supposed to do with their "Life Cycles" is because it is either stated or derived from the Torah.
6. How and why is Halakha ("Jewish Law") part of "Jewish Philosophy"? There should be an entire section devoted to Jewish law ALONE!
7. To place Kabbalah under the banner of "Jewish Philosophy" is FACTUALLY incorrect because the two subjects generally mutually exclude each other. One deals with pure Mysticism (guess which one) and the other is rooted in Rationalism (...and yes, I know that Chabad claims to "combine" the two, but does it really?)
8. Why are these four under the heading of "Jewish Philosophy": Kashrut; Tzeniut; Minyan; and Tzedakah when they are actually more part of the 613 mitzvot, meaning COMMANDMENTS?
9. Why is Shabbat in the "Jewish Holidays" section? Any serious student of Judaism knows it's not a "holiday", but it is a Holy Day.
10. How is the reader of the template supposed to know which are the major holidays, like Yom Kippur and which are just minor fast days such as Tenth of Tevet? This issue has never been addressed.
11. The "Important Figures" leaves out so many and includes others. Who the most important figures in Judaism are is a major challenge.

So the above are some of my observations for now. Does anyone care to join in with the critique? IZAK 07:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bleh. Whack smack crack. Somewhere there seems to have been a confusion between "criticism" and "critique". As I said from the outset, "THIS OBVIOUSLY NEEDS PARING DOWN". That said, I'm almost now of a rebel mind to insist that it doesn't, just to be equally obstinate. Tomer ^TALK 09:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good thing you're just kidding. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say "Holy Days" instead of Holidays anyway?  BD2412 ^talk 02:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Over at Template talk:Islam there has been some debate about adding criticism of Islam to the template. One of the arguments against it has been that criticism of Judaism (which unlike criticism of Islam and Christianity does not exist) is not on this template. On Islamic articles there has been a slight problem with editors trying to do things anti-Islam so some of the editors of the template feel it is a continuation. I typically tend to be middle of the line between the two camps and I think it should be added. However, I don't think it will stand if there is only criticism for Islam and not for Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, and the other major belief systems. So, I would encourage you to come to Template talk:Islam and participate in the discussion there and bring this to a more universal level. I am aware that the dynamics of this will be different since there is not a criticism page for Judaism but I'm sure in time will come. I'm not fully sure that the idea of an individual criticism page for a religion is encyclopedically sound... but, it is a reality and as long as its NPOV it should be fine. So, speculative thoughts would be welcome on the Islam template talk page so maybe there can be a concensus on this. Thanks. gren グレン 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This template is a mess. I'm going to adopt it and merge it with {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}.-- HereToHelp ( talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This template isn't a mess, it's bloated, and primarily because rather than actually help with it, people just sat around and pissed and moaned a lot. While you're "adopting" it, you might consider reviewing this. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 22:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To fix that bloat, there's been an idea to shrink to font (see the talk for {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}).-- HereToHelp ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This thing is just too long! I say move everything on Jews to {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, and leave only Judaism here.-- HereToHelp ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So what I'm thinking is:

Judaism

Jewish philosophy

Jewish principles of faith

Jewish eschatology

Kabbalah

Halakha

Jews as a chosen people

Names of God in Judaism

Minyan

Tzedakah

Tzeniut

Kashrut

Messiah

Religious Zionism

Jewish ethics

Mussar Movement

Holocaust theology

Jewish religious texts

Torah

Tanakh

Talmud

Siddur

Humash

Mishneh Torah

Zohar

Tanya

Tosefta

Mishnah Berurah

Shulkhan Arukh

Kuzari

Rabbinic literature

Midrash

Tur

Piyyutim

• etc.

Holy Cities

Jerusalem

Safed

Hebron

Teverya

Jewish Holidays

Shabbat

Rosh HaShana

Yom Kipur

Sukkot

Simchat Torah

Chanukkah

Tenth of Tevet

Tu Bishvat

Purim

Passover

Shavuot

9 Av

Shalosh regalim

• etc.

Important Figures

Gersonides

Ramban

Joseph Albo

Tosafists

Abraham

Moses

Dvora

Ruth

David

Solomon

Eliyahu

Hillel

Ezra Hasofer

Saadia Gaon

Rashi

Ibn Ezra

Rambam

Rif

Baal Shem Tov

Ovadia Yosef

Moshe Feinstein

Lubavitcher Rebbe

Jewish lifecycle

Brit milah

Bar mitzvah

Jewish wedding

Niddah

• etc.

Schools

Yeshiva

Talmud Academy

Jewish Theological Seminary

Hebrew Union College

Yeshiva University

Religious roles

Priest

Rabbi

Chazzan

Ba'al tfila/Shatz

Sandaq

Mohel

Kvater/in

Kes (Beta Israel)

Dayan

Shochet

Sofer

Rosh yeshiva

Mashgiach

• etc.

Buildings

Temple in Jerusalem

Synagogue

Mikvah

• etc.(?)

Jewish liturgy

Jewish services

Arvit

Shacharit

Musaf

Mincha

Havdalah

Sects

Rabbanism

Karaite Judaism

Samaritan

Jewish Denominations

Orthodox Judaism

Hasidic Judaism

Conservative Judaism

Reform Judaism

Reconstructionist Judaism

Traditional Judaism

Beta Israel

Jewish religious articles

Tallit

Tefillin

Yarmulke

Tzitzit

Kittel

Menorah

Chanukiya

Mezuzah

List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings

Shema Yisrael

Amidah

Aleinu

Kaddish

Kol Nidre

Hallel

Ma Tovu

Relationship to other Religions

Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity

Judeo-Christian

Judeo-Paganism

Islam and Judaism

Judeo-Islamic

Jewish views of religious pluralism

Abrahamic religions

Christian-Jewish reconciliation

Relations between Catholicism and Judaism

obviously, some of this stuff should be pared out...

(sign your name please)

No kidding, all that is missing is the kosher " kitchen sink" IZAK 05:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, I forgot that part: Here it is:

• Kosher Kitchen Sink

:-p

And sorry for not signing, as you may or may not have been able to ascertain from looking at it, I spent a great deal of time working on this today, and signing my name to it was the least of my worries :-|~ Tomer ^TALK 06:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) Tomer ^TALK 06:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) Tomer ^TALK 06:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I "edited" the above list/s so that we can all read them as they appear in their original articles, no need for "funny squeeglies" that no-one can read. This way everyone knows how the original articles appear on Wikipedia. IZAK 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That looks really good, except that we have finite space to put this in. Maybe we should have each of these as a separate template, and then a "master" template for the broad topics.-- Here T oHelp 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This bloated blimp on a page, it's not a "template", is like having the proverbial "bull in a China shop" – it's disgustingly bloated to the point of being obtuse and meaningless. There are many other fine, SMALLER templates that deal with the gamut of articles and topics pertaining to Judaism (as I previously mentioned above, see Duplication of other templates), but this blimp does nothing but blur the picture (literally and figuratively). So let's try to stick with Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar which is relatively neater and tries to avoid "dealing with the challenge of dealing with everything" – including the (kosher) kitchen sink. Thank you. IZAK 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. There is a teaching in Judaism of Tofasta meruba lo tofasta – which basically means that: "If you try to take of hold of everything then you take hold of nothing". Think about it! IZAK 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a template(?) ...

IT'S A B L I M P ... IZAK 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing this from the template page: <noinclude>Template links are incompatible with this template. To elaborate, {{tl|Judaism}} will be merged into {{tl|Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, but the final product will sit at ''Judaism''. ''Jew'' will have famous Jews.</noinclude>

In addition, I edited the template so that it deals with, and only reflects, JUDAISM (cause, how on Earth do articles about kibbutzim etc fit in with "Judaism"?), so at least this version of the template will be referring to Judaism if it's used by some folks, and it has been used already. IZAK 10:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Any place to fit on the template a link to Messianic Judaism? I'll add it to the very bottom for now unless someone else wants to change it. inigmatus 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very controversial. I think Alternative Judaism is a better choice (if any) because it lists other similar alternatives as well. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It would make more sense to add it to the Christianity Template. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Including Messianic Judaism or Jews for Jesus in the Judaism template would probably be in poor taste and would probably incite a lot of controversy. Valley2city

I believe the Judaism template is a good example of how a religion's template should be done. I would like to ask any impartial editors to also take a look at the Scientology template and make any suggestions for bringing it up to the same standards of fairness and encyclopedic impartiality as this one. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we also include the festival of Sigd and the role of the Kessim in their respective catagores? It would be best if we also expand those articles. Are we attempting to keep this general or include all the geographical streams?

Guy Montag 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently Rif links to an article on a region in Morocco, not an important figure in Judaism. Where is this meant to link? -- Steven J. Anderson 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I correct it. it now points correctly to Isaac Alfasi. Jon513 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'important figures' are arranged in somewhat random order. Does anyone object if I rearrange them in date order?-- Redaktor 12:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering removing Shacharit, Mincha, Ma'ariv, Musaf and Neilah. They all redirect to Jewish services, which is already linked. A template should be a convenience for the reader to find useful and relevant articles, not a repetitive list of duplicative links. Comments? -- Steven J. Anderson 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposal seems sensible.-- Redaktor 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. – Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing items in accordance with this proposal.-- Redaktor 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared to other religions, this template is way too big. We should start working on shrinking it, getting some of the less important material out, and making it thinner.-- Sefringle 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said! How about removing the section "Judaism & other religions"? -- Redaktor 12:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about not. Most religous templates (ej: {{ Islam}}) have similar sections. Maybe we could remove some of the links though. There are at least 4 Christianity links. We could shrink it down to one.-- Sefringle 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's one, not most. {{ Christianity}} manages without!-- Redaktor 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, it's what I was saying two years ago (see above discussions) when they started on expanding this blimp, it's about time it was cut by at least half or more! Imagine if Hillel would have said all this to the potential convert, instead of defining Judaism as "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. ( Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a) IZAK 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem comes from the number of links not the sections. This is a general template: We have to keep in each section only the most important articles. eg: keep only Judaism and Christianity and Judiams and Islam in "Judaism & other religions", the most popular denominations in "Denominations", the same thing for "History", "Leaders", "Prayers" (which is overwhelming)... CG 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The three longest sections are: Jewish history, Jewish holidays, and Important figures. Many of these sections contain things barely relevant to Judaism. Such articles should be removed. Possibly even the entire Jewish holidays section, as there already is a Jewish holidays template, which contains most of the holidays on this template ({{ Jewish and Israeli holidays}}). Not to mention many are on the {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}} template.-- Sefringle 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the removial of the "Jewish Holidays" section from this template?-- Sefringle 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not object, but I submit that the template for holidays be divided up: one for secular holidays invented by non-Torah ideologues, and one for Torah holidays. The two have no connection and should not be misleadingly lumped together as if they are equally part of "Judaism," when this is blatantly POV. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Section removed. Now we can work on shortening the other sections.-- Sefringle 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish History The articles listed under Jewish History are very interesting, but tangential; there are other articles more directly relevant to Judaism which (for good reason) are not listed in the template. The template really does need a Jewish History section; let it stick to Judaism.-- Redaktor 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been no opposition to this proposal for three weeks.-- Redaktor 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Section has now been removed to Template:Jewish history-- Redaktor 05:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Important Figures The biggest section of the template is Important Figures. At the risk of stepping on some toes, I would like to propose (a) removing people who are important to one Jewish group but others (e.g., Hasidic rebbes, Vilna Gaon), (b) removing modern rabbis, and (c) pruning down the medieval rabbis. I'm not saying that these aren't important people, just that I think the template is over-loaded with important people and we have to make some choices. I'd be open to some alternative suggestions. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Support proposal.-- Sefringle ^Talk 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Going with the tree model I proposed long ago, I think this template should be pared down to its most basic possible level. For example, what Redaktor did above with the Jewish History section... I don't have time to address it right now, but please don't close the discussion in the next 2 days...I've got some ideas I'd like to have a fair shake before anything drastic is done, but I really need to be concentrating on work stuff until Thursday afternoon... Tom e r ^talk 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are some section headings blue and others black?-- Redaktor 22:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The blue ones were put there by Zionists, and the black ones were "fixed" by Yehoishophot Oliver. (Just kidding.) The blue ones link to articles, lists, or categories, and the black ones are just titles. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the blue wikilinks are all part of a fiendish Zionist plot?  :-) -- Redaktor 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no Zionist plot. Move along. -- Eliyak T· C 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Jews · Judaism · Denominations section I suggest the removal of all movements. Including dead sects like the Hasideans and Tzedukim. Otherwise rename it to movements and include movements like Zionism and remove denominations like Rabbinic. In which case it wont make it noteworthy for a Judaism template and should be removed all together.

I guess I'll start to fix it. 210.84.40.154 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from the template until other editors have had an opportunity to respond to your suggestions. Otherwise your deletions will continue to be reverted. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What do most of: Principles of faith · Minyan · Kabbalah Noahide laws · God · Eschatology · Messiah Chosenness · Holocaust · Halakha · Kashrut Modesty · Tzedakah · Ethics · Mussar have to do with Jewish philosophy. This section should be renamed or be change to include links to philosophical ideas. Or possibly even to some fundamental books like the Saadia Goan's Emunot v'Dayot 210.84.40.154 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from the template until other editors have had an opportunity to respond to your suggestions. Otherwise your deletions will continue to be reverted. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is completely on the Template:Jewish life. Any objections to the removial of this section? Yahel Guhan 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor added links to various Christian topics such as the New Testament, Jesus Christ and Christ. These links were piped using the Messianic Jewish names for these things, such as "Brit Chadashah" and "Yahshua HaMashiach". My biggest concern was that the link to Jewish messiah was completely removed and replaced with Christ, which clearly is not appropriate when representing mainstream Judaism. I know that some people don't even consider Messianic Jews "Jewish", but I personally wouldn't mind at least a link to Messianic Judaism on this template. However, I believe decepitely blurring the lines between Judaism and Christianity by slipping in various Christian topical articles through piped Hebrew terms does not seem appropriate. I'd like to hear the anon's case for including this new content, and I would like to hear what others have to say about these changes. - Andrew c  ^[talk] 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You made the right call. – Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for this? Masterhomer 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually. As I said in my edit summary, the menorah is a much better representative symbol of Judaism than a magan davidh. I see a huge on , but no . This is discussed briefly in both Menorah and Star of David. The argument that the magan davidh is a better match for the color scheme is singularly poor--the color scheme was copied from the then-current color scheme for {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, which has, itself, taken on a new color scheme, and, in fact, contains the exact same menora image as I used here... Tom e r ^talk 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Magen David, at some point or another, has become the "universal" symbol for Judaism, like the cross for Xtianity and the cresent for Islam. -- Eliyak T· C 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's become the "universal" symbol for Jews in the West perhaps, most likely because of the Sho'a, but that's hardly "universal" for Judaism which is what this template is about. Granted it's pretty difficult from within to see the distinctions sometimes between Jews and Judaism, but to the average Western mind the separation [dichotomy almost] between cultural identity and religious affiliation are complete, and the majan davið is definitely a symbol of Jews, not of Judaism. If it were otherwise, secular and completely unobservant Jews wouldn't run around with hexagrams hanging around their necks and sites like JewishJeans.com wouldn't be using them as a marketing scheme. Beyond that, however, is the additional fact that the menorah is a distinctly "Jewish" symbol, and even when it is used by chilonim or apikorsim, it is done as an identification with Judaism, not Jewishness. I really don't think it's worth getting into a big fight over, which is why I said to revert it if my rationale for changing the image didn't meet muster--I responded above simply bcz the question was asked, and I thought someone might actually be interested in why the idea had even occurred to me to change it. TIA. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 01:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tomer. ← Humus sapiens

Agree with Tomer. If anything, since the advent of zionism the Magen Dovid has become less associated with Judaism per se and far more with the secularist ideology of zionism. The Menorah, however, has been and continues to be a truly Jewish symbol. Yehoishophot Oliver 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's replace this Zoroastrianism symbol then! Chesdovi ( talk) 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Menorah is better symbol for Judaism than the Star of David. It seems to be more universally recognized as Jewish. Also, the star of David has been used in other areas (such as the flag of modern Israel), thus not everyone considers it a symbol of Judaism. Bless sins ( talk) 19:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

the star of david is the most standard symbol in present times, and is more appropiate. Yahel Guhan 04:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The sister template {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}} has a good solution: they use both symbols. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 09:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The biggest section of the template, by far, is "Important figures". A few months ago, I proposed trimming that section and got little feedback. If nobody objects, I'll start removing important figures over the next week or so. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

please specify your intent. Which people do you intend to remove? Yahel Guhan 03:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulling out my chainsaw, I would delete:

Saadia Gaon · Rif · Ramban · Gersonides · Yosef Albo · Rabbeinu Asher · Baal Shem Tov · Alter Rebbe · Vilna Gaon · Leopold Zunz · Israel Jacobson · Abraham Geiger · Ovadia Yosef · Moshe Feinstein · Elazar Shach · Lubavitcher Rebbe

It may be easier if I tell you who I would keep. After the Biblical figures and Hillel, Shammai, and Judah the Prince, the only people I would keep are:

Rashi · Ibn Ezra · Tosafists · Rambam · Yosef Karo

Among important people in Jewish religious history, I would say that they are possibly the most important. But I'd like to hear which people other editors think we need to keep. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't know who most of these people are, I have no objections to the removial of most of them... with the exception of Ovadia Yosef, Baal Shem Tov, and Abraham Geiger. These seem to be important figures. Yahel Guhan 04:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:INEVERHEARDOFIT The problem is that they're all important (although there are a few I had never heard of either), which is why I hope we can reach some sort of consensus. Some of the rabbis from recent centuries are important within a specific movement and may be considered unimportant – or worse yet, reviled – by other movements. The Vilna Gaon, for example, was a vehement opponent of Hasidism and the Baal Shem Tov was the founder of the Hasidic movement. – Malik Shabazz ( Talk | contribs) 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What I figured is if they founded a major branch/movement in Judiasm, they are important. If they were just a contributor, they aren't quite as important, and thus may not belong on the template. It is possible I missed some important things, as I only skimmed the intro to see who these people are, but these ones stood out as being more important to me. Yahel Guhan 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Judah the Prince is an incorrect translation of Hebrew Judah haNasi. 'haNasi' means 'the president', while 'haNasich' means 'the prince'. so it should be 'Judah the President', but should better be 'Judah haNasi', since president is interpreted differently in different cultures. Nevo taaseh ( talk) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are still a little wrong, see Nasi; this guy predates modern Hebrew. Maybe just Judah the Nasi would be better. The article was just called Judah haNasi though last I checked, so we could just use that in the template. – Kendrick7 ^talk 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be easier to just have a List of important figures in Judaism placeholder article and just point the template there? – Kendrick7 ^talk 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Twelvers2 can become... Template:Twelvers

I also was wondering when we would be adding a fourth image. -- Enzuru 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the Important Figures section is quite objective. I am hesitant to add more people to it as the template is long enough as it is. However, how do we decide who goes in there? It seems that all of the contemporary people or those from the past century could all be classified as "Orthodox". I'm afraid that if I add Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist important figures, these will get reverted. What criteria should we create for adding to the Important Figures section so that it doesn't become a monstrosity. Valley2city 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I think Solomon Schechter, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Mordecai Kaplan are very important figures – moreso than Ovadia Yosef, whose chief importance seems to be putting his foot in his mouth. – Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ovadia Yosef is important because he is inlfuential. Many people in Israel sneer at his personality, but, like a landlady at one of his former residences learned, God watches out over the honor of the Sages. She was angered that Ovadia Yossef did not come down for the residents' meeting and started it without him. Turns out that he either forgot and was out taking care of Torah learning program of the day. Throughout the next year she came down with various illnesses that prompted her to turn to experts and cabbalists. A top mystic told her that all the pains and ills that she had endured was due to disrespect she caused to a great Torah sage. She had to apologize before the sage even though he had no idea that he missed the meeting and that it caused her ills. She immediately remembered, and apologized before Ovadia Yosef. He admitted he knew nothing of it, also apologized, and blessed her. She was fine ever afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This template is still pretty big. I'm thinking perhaps parts could be spun off to their own templates...specifically I'm thinking Template:History of Judaism (analogous to Template:History of France, etc.) would be a good place to start..and that Jewish history can remain as a link in this template as part of another section (probably one yet to be created, by collapsing several other sections into it)... Thoughts? Tom e r ^talk 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the "bloat" thing...what I was referring to is that there are still several articles that are linked to more than once, from different places within the template... also, there's already a {{ JewishHolidays}}, so why are we taking up 4 lines in this template to list them all (or even half)? I see a similar thing has happened at {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, where a dozen languages have found their way back into the template, completely ignoring the existence of {{ Jewish languages}}, and without any apparently consistent rationale. Tom e r ^talk 20:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While I see the use of this template, it seems troublesome that it conflicts with template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. Perhaps a better idea would be to use {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} combined with one of several mini-templates for specific topics, such as those in the various subsections- Jewish Philosophy, Jewish religious texts, Important Jewish figures, etc. -- Eliyak T· C 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...I'll try to come up with a proposal over the next few days. Tom e r ^talk 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

While this wasn't what I originally meant by "mini-templates", here is a demonstration of how an optional input argument (in this case, {{Jew|phil}}) could control a variable subsection on {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}. -- Eliyak T· C 01:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know how to use the "hide/show" feature? I think it would be very appropriate for this admittedly large template (I didn't help by expanding the holiday section...)

This template was "pretty big" several bloat iterations ago, and is now in or around "unspeakably sprawling". I'd personally favour the assemblage of mini-templates idea (perhaps in a meta-template, so as to keep the appearance as consistent as possible), but failing that the show/hide idea would at least be a step in the right direction. Alai 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the template's bloated. Judaism is a complicated, respectably old way of life, thinking, faith and ethnicity. This is also the reason I included Litvish next to Hasidic, since they are equivalent. For those who do not know, Ashkenazi Jews are born either Hasidic or non-Hasidic, and the 99.99% of Torah- and Halacha-learned and learning non-hasidic Ashkenazim know that they follow the Litvish halacho. These both entities can be referred to as subgroups of the Ashkenazi ethnic subgroup. Any Jew can also choose to follow or join either of the subgroups. This is my justification for keeping Litvish alongside Hasidic. Bo Basil ( talk) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it has been suggested on the Talk:Bible page (see Talk:Bible#Space) that this template and others be made collapsible, in order to improve article layout. I looked at the {{ Christianity}} template to see what was done there to make that possible. What do you think of modifying the {{ Judaism}} template to add this feature? Loves Macs (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to order the entries of each subsection of this template in alphabetical order? (e.g. Cheder, Kollel, Yeshiva) Debresser ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This template is, in my opinion, way too big and cumbersome. I think we need to narrow it down to the most critical and basic aspects of Judaism. In order to consolidate and cleanup the template, I have made a new proposed template. I made a lot of changes, and I did have a reasoning behind each one. Please let me know if there's a particular change that you'd like me to explain. Please comment. -shirulashem ^(talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a big improvement. Thanks for taking the time to do this. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at User:Shirulashem/sandbox/judaismtemplate and it's history, and so I saw more or less which changes you made. A nice job, although nothing major. I think you should put Chevra Kadisha back in. Apart from that I endorse your proposal. Debresser ( talk) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll wait to see if a few more people have opinions and then make the change. Chevra Kadisha is back in. -shirulashem ^(talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a few more changes. -shirulashem ^(talk) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd think we should have Cheder and/or Talmud Torah, and Kollel back. Perhaps even in a subsection about Jewish education. I think we should stick to "Jew" rather than "Jewish". Debresser ( talk) 19:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed Talmud Torah because I don't even think they really exist anymore. Cheder I removed because I felt it could sort of be consumed under yeshiva. Cheder is basically yeshiva for young bucherim. Truthfully I feel more strongly about Talmud Torah, but I don't mind if Cheder is put back since it's still the place of education for chassidim/charaidim. -shirulashem ^(talk) 19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that a cheder is "basically yeshiva for young bucherim" is something like saying that "kindergarten" is "basically a high school for youngsters". Did you read the article? Debresser ( talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you say about my other comments? Debresser ( talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by sticking to "jew" instead of "jewish", but I like the other stuff and I've added a section called jewish education with cheder and beis yaakov. -shirulashem ^(talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A few small things: "denominatons" without capital. Where is Kollel? I think Beis Yaakov should be left out, because it is not a type but a brand name. It is (forgive me for being rude) like adding Heineken to "Lager beer, dark beer, non-alcohol beer". Debresser ( talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If boys go to cheder/yeshiva, where do girls go? Yes, Beis Yaakov is a "brand," but unfortunately I'm not aware of any other name for a Jewish girls school. I know it's not ideal, but I don't see another choice. Beis Yaakov is also more than just a brand, it's a movement. -shirulashem ^(talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I still oppose Beis Yaakov for the reason I mentioned. We can't add any specific brand/movement, or we'll have to add all of them. So let's just leave it out. If there is no general article about girls education in religious Judaism, then we don't need a link in this template. Debresser ( talk) 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. -shirulashem ^(talk) 23:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that "Beis Yaakov" today really carries much relationship to the original movement; it's now the canonic name for a frum girls school (Koh Somar L'Veis Ya'akov, V'Sagaid Livnei Yisrael...). -- Avi ( talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But still there are very many frum girls schools with other names. Not to mention that the whole concept of a school for girls is definitely not a traditional Jewish institution. That is actually a general reason to oppose inclusion of any school for girls in this template. Debresser ( talk) 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, If we were making this template in the early 1900s, I'd agree with you. But this is not a template just for Jewish institutions from before the 20th century. -shirulashem ^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. I only wanted to point out that I won't mourn for leaving out an institution of less than a 100 years old (just a guess) when we have such millenia old institutions as "yeshiva" or "mohel". Just a private thought of mine. Debresser ( talk) 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose to add a link Criticism of Judaism to the template at bottom. This would be balanced and neutral, and would be consistent with similar links in the following similar religion templates:

• Template:Roman Catholicism links to Criticism of Catholicism
• Template:Islam links to Criticism of Islam
• Template:Buddhism links to Criticism of Buddhism
• Template:Christianity links to Criticism of Christianity
• Template:Latter-day Saints links to Criticism of Mormonism
• Template:Seventh-day Adventism links to Criticism of Seventh-day Adventism
• Template:Hinduism links to Criticism of Hinduism

-- Noleander ( talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, IMHO. Debresser ( talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

By what criteria have the current five (out of 613!) featured laws, (Kashrut · Tzniut · Tzedakah · Niddah · Noahide laws), been picked? Chesdovi ( talk) 12:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we restructure this section - particularly the "Orthodox" row. It is, in my opinion, misleading. It lists Haredi, Hassidic and Modern as the three branches of Orthodox Judaism. Clearly this is incorrect. Hassidic Judaism is a subset of Haredi Judaism, as is Lithuanian (non-Hassidic) Haredi Judaism and Sephardic Haredi Judaism. Either all three should be listed under Haredi Judaism, or none should. For an example of how we can arrange it, see the Hebrew Wikipedia template at the bottom of this page. [1]

I propose we arrange it as follows: Orthodox - Haredi ( Hassidic • Litvish • Sephardic) • Dati Leumi ( Hardal) • Modern Orthodox Sstr ( talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make this template narrower, say 2/3rds its current width, for the sake of smaller screens and windows. Also, please make the dots between links look less like dead pixels. {{·}} (i.e. a middot between the two curly template brackets) seems to be the norm. Thanks. 212.84.103.144 ( talk) 20:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the dots by {{·w}}, but do not think we should change the width of this template. Also because the specific entries on each line are chosen for their length in view of the present width of the template, which means it would have to be reorganised. Debresser ( talk) 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

I have reorganized the template to make its width narrower (see below). For the sake of the reason given originally, I recommend it is adopted. 212.84.100.119 ( talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note this also makes it much taller and more likely to disrupt image layout. ― cobaltcigs 03:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If so, I could amend it to use the "Sidebar with collapsible lists" template. Yes, no? 212.84.100.119 ( talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleary, not a simple non-controvertial edit request, so I have cancelled the {{editsemiprotected}} for now; please reinstate it if you can show a consensus, etc. Reinstate the {{editsemiprotected}} when consensus is clear.  Chzz   ►  02:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit backward..? I mean, until people see the amended format in articles, it looks like there's only a handful of us considering it. So, how about make the change and see if/how people react to it? (My offer to implement the "Sidebar with collapsible lists" template still stands.) 212.84.100.213 ( talk) 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a very good point, and I'm strongly in favour of bold changes, however the template is used on almost 100 live articles ^[2], and in such cases I see no harm in waiting a while for a bit of a chat about things; also I noted that Debresser ( talk · contribs) was involved in the discussions, and I feel confident that user will keep an eye on things. (I'll notify him/her of this thread too). As I said, if a consensus can be shown, just use another {{editsemiprotected}} - indeed, if you disagree with my assessment of the situation, just use another of those and get another opinion.

There is another alternative approach that I recommend; get a user account, and after just 4 days and 10 edits, you could edit the template directly, yourself; there are lots of other advantages too. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?.

Note, I am taking a break from Wikipedia (and just replied to this as follow-up), so please do ask others to action this further, using {{editsemiprotected}} when appropriate. Best of luck,  Chzz   ►  19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is good reason to have it smaller, and there is good reason not to have it longer. I don't really mind, now that the layout problem has been solved. But I'd also prefer that the change be made by a registered editor, who can be trusted to do follow up, in case the change meets with protest from other users. Debresser ( talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the template as it is now is way too wide. Also the font for the links and dots is too small. 213.246.121.86 ( talk) 12:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add Samaritan to the list of denominations please? 84.13.28.220 ( talk) 09:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Judaism is practically defined by exiles, or at least the destruction of the Temple, etc. The Samaritans didn't go through this, and were in fact never exiled (though their temple was destroyed I think). The very name "Jew" is from "Yehudi," not a tribe-name, but a toponym: Judean. The Samaritans are not Judeans, they are, well, Samaritans. From Samaria. They claim descent from the Kingdom of Israel, not the Kingdom of Judah. They may well be considered "Israelites" (Benny Tsedaka (a Samaritan) tends to refer to them in his writing as "the Israelite-Samaritans"), but I don't think they're a subset of Jews. Clsn ( talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree. This template is for Judaism alone. Debresser ( talk) 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I added the AH alongside the Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Brura. As stated in the article on AH, the AH is considered one of the authoritative sources of modern law, and many would use that as the final arbiter. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)]]

I'll take the liberty of undoing that. They may claim that it should have been as authoritive, but it isn't. By far. Debresser ( talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In Europe before the war, the AH was more authoritative than the MB. The MB is more machmir and that is why we generally use the MB today, but the AH still remains an authoritative source. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yossiea, I don't think anyone would argue that the Aruch Hashulchan isn't authoritative ... it's just not currently accepted universally like the Shulchan Aruch and the Mishna Berura are. I'm inclined to agree that the A"H should not be in the template. As a side note, the claims in the A"H article that R' Henkin and R' Pearl hold that the A"H is more authoritative than the M"B are not sourced. -shirulashem ^(talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this is years old, but I think we should re-add it. Several poskim, including R' Moshe state that the AH is to be used over the MB. Yossiea ^(talk) 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Add it and wait to see if somebody removes it. If so, discuss. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I readded it. For some more info, see here: http://torahmusings.com/2012/02/mishna-berura-vs-aruch-hashulchan/ where some sources of the AH's supremacy over the MB is discussed. (Plus, even if it's not supreme, it's still should be listed as a text.) Yossiea ^(talk) 05:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit request to Template:Judaism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

24.104.140.61 ( talk) 13:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: No request was made. Please see WP:EDITREQ for help. -- ElHef ( Meep?) 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please add the category, "Holidays," to the template "Judaism"? I feel that this would be an important inclusion, and will add knowledge to those of us inquiring about the subject. Davidbena ( talk) 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree at the very least some of the major holidays should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)