Talk:Orthodox Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Orthodox Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Changes in article 2 Core of Judaism seems to not be NPOV 3 Why remove the context? 4 Many Inaccuracies 5 Picture 6 Unrelated New Page: Brit-Dam 7 Changes to introduction and summary 8 Hebrew naming conventions 9 Introduction 10 Orthodox (United & Federation) Shuls in UK 11 Rabbinical Worldvew 12 "Legalistic" 13 Frum here? 14 Contrast with other movements in Intro 15 No Criticism? 16 Shulchan Aruch and the word "developed" 17 Ben Ish Chai and KAf Hachaim 18 13 principles 19 Footnote-style citation 20 Hasidic Jews and The Baal Hatanya 21 In Practice 22 Recent photo 22.1 Convenience break 22.2 Photo was not taken on Shabbat 22.3 Wait a moment 23 Possible issue with Israeli law? 24 On the photo: The Voice of Reason! 25 Mikvah, family purity, etc. 26 THE representative of Orthodox Jewry picture 27 Hasidic couple photo 28 Top Photo 29 Emunah not the same as Faith 30 Lead picture

[edit] Changes in article

The following change was made; however, I am going to revert it, and explain why. RK

Since there is no one unifying Orthodox body, there is no one official statement of principles of faith. Rather, each Orthodox group claims to be a non-exclusive heir to the received tradition of Jewish theology, usually affirming a literal.

Orthodox Jews really do hold that they exclusively are heir to the received tradition of Jewish theology. They publicly and repeatedly state that all forms of Judaism are heretical or false, with the exception of Orthodoxy. If that doesn't fit the definition of the word exclusive, then nothing does. Many Orthodox groups do not even respect the validity of other Orthodox groups. RK

to outright rejection of modernity as sinful. You have to have a narrow definition of modernity before you will find any Orthodox group who will agree with that statement. Ezra Wax

Well, of course few Orthodox groups would state that they hold this position in this language, because Orthodox groups don't use such terminology. Secondly, we are using a narrow definition of modernity. In fact, we linked to the definition that we are using. Please read it. You will see that much of what we call modernity is explicitly and/or implicitly rejected by Orthodox Judaism. RK

[edit] Core of Judaism seems to not be NPOV

'Orthodox Judaism is the core of Judaism and is characterized by:'

Seems to me that non-Orthodox Jews might take issue with Orthodox Judaism being identified as the core of the religion. Jdavidb 19:22, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the last headline should read like that :"Core of Judaism" seems not to be NPOV :-))). Sometimes spellos are more than enlightening (Freud mentioned that..)

[edit] Why remove the context?

Jayjg, why did you remove the sentencs about two groups and label it as a possible "POV" violation? Wikipedia policy has always allowed, and in fact required, articles to differentiate between mainstream groups and minority groups. In an article on American politics, it would be factually incorrect, as well as a POV violation, to present NORMAL, the very tiny fringe political party to legalize marijuana use, as being of equal importance in the role that the Republican and Democrat parties play. Like it or not, NORMAL has failed to make a significant impact in the American political scene; the number of votes they get for their Presidential, Senatorial or Congressional candidates is less than minimal. Most Americans probably don't even know that this group exists. RK

Similarly, we have the same responsibility to accurately present Jewish groups. This article notes the two large Orthodox Jewish groups in North America, the Orthodox Union and its affiliated RCA, and the Agudath Yisrael. It also mentions the smaller group, the National Council of Young Israel. For the sake of completeness, it even mentions two tiny fringe groups that most Jews don't even know exist. Your edit of the article gives no such information; all the context has been deleted. These tiny groups have virtually no public support, let alone knowledge of their existence. Their inclusion on this webpage at all is grossly disproportionate to their size and impact; I added them for comparison, for their curiosity value, and frankly, because I sometimes have OCD in regards to completeness; I like to list every possibility, even the fringe ones. However, to be fair and give an accurate portrayal of Orthodox Judaism, we are obligated to note that these groups are tiny, are widely considered to be religious extremists - even by their fellow Orthodox Jews - and they are also literally unknown to most Jews. Without this infomartion readers of this article would be misled as to their role in the Jewish community. Of course, how this information is presented is important, and I agree with you that we need to present such info in an NPOV fashion. RK 00:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Fringe" is almost always inherently POV. With political parties you have a way of measuring these things; typically votes, perhaps funding or membership. But how did you measure "fringe" in these cases? "Tiny" is generally POV as well; most American Rabbinic organizations have at most a couple of thousand members; why would one organization with 2,000 members be "mainstream", and another with 650 members be "tiny"? And the statements that "most American Jews have never heard of them" applies equally well to Agudat Israel and even the Orthodox Union. However, most Orthodox Jews have heard of all of these groups, including the "fringe" ones. In any event, since no polls have been done measuring how many American Jews have heard of any of these groups, the statements are simply personal opinion. Jayjg 02:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The OU and RCA represent many, many American Jews. In contrast, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and other small groups do do not. The reason is that RCA rabbis work in OU congregations; they represent not just an advocacy group but a large segment of the American Jewish community. That cannot be said to be true for the last three Orthodox Jewish groups on this list; they represent much tinier fractions of the American Jewish community. This is not "personal opinion". My sources include the Encyclopedia Judaica and "Piety & Power" by David Landau. RK 23:53, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

How old is the Judaica reference that calls them "fringe" and "tiny"? In what sentence does it use those words? Jayjg 01:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This line bothers me.

" Orthodoxy can roughly be classified into Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism (Hasidic Judaism is a subgroup within Haredi Judaism)."

Their are many more groups within Orthodox Judaism.

I would argue thier are three main groups.

Modern Orthodox, Centrist Orthodox, Haredi.

And I would add that Hasidic Judaism floats somewhere above Orthodoxy, as historically it stands in contrast to the primacy of the halakhah, against mitnagdic Jews.

[edit] Many Inaccuracies

That article is far from perfect. Anyway, when I tried to fix one of the more terrible mistakes (Agudat Israel opposed Rabbi Hirsch, when actually his adherents were the party's founders), my edit was reverted. SHASHAZ 09:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Does somebody have a better picture than the one of the young men from Meah Shearim? It isn't a particularly flattering picture, and it also seems to me that that gesture might mean that they're not particularly happy about having their picture taken. Actually I think I'll remove the picture, and somebody can put up a better picture if they have one. --Ezra Wax 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe the recently added picture should be removed. It pictures clothing etc. which is not a requirement of Orthodox Judaism and which reflects only an element of a diverse culture. Either there should be no pictures at all, or there should be pictures which reflect Orthodox Judaism's diversity. --Shirahadasha 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because it is too small to be of any use. Jon513 06:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's back, and I'm removing it again.--Shirahadasha 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated New Page: Brit-Dam

Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.

—  <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     30 August 2005

BS"D

[edit] Changes to introduction and summary

The opening statement, defining Orthodoxy as the reaction to Reform, is misleading. Not only is this not a central, or even important, principal of Orthodox Judaism, but also most Orthodox Jews would describe themselves as the bearers of traditions greatly predating the advent of Reform Judaism. Most Reform Jews would probably descrive themselves the same way - not as reactants to Orthodoxy. In place of this, the opening paragraph should be a summary of the views which uniquely characterize Orthodox Judaism. These are the divinity of the Written and Oral Law (Torah and Talmud), and the importance of strict adherence to this Law and its interpretation and codification by the Rabbis of the last millenium, the Shulkhan Arukh in particular.

Since a discussion of some of the subgroups of Orthodox Judaism has been included in the introduction till now, it would be beneficial to briefly touch upon the primary issues and debates between these subgroups. The five points I have put forth summarize these issues well.

Hasidic Judaism and Haredi Judaism, while in agreement on many matters, are not really a single subgroup, and should be considered separately. There might be other articles in Wikipedia which should be changed accordingly. Both of these groups dress traditionally, but they do not dress similarly. They also disagree over the importance and centrality of Torah study - both agree it's important, but Haredi Jews typically emphasize it more than Hasidim. Additionally, Haredi Jews typically integrate into non-Jewish society more than their Hasidic counterparts.

Scorpiuss 07:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

BS"D Are you sure you're not referring to Hasidim and Mitnagdim? I thought Chareidi was a term which simply encompassed black-hat-communities, the Agudath Israel fold. yodamace1

My impression is that the term Chareidi is used to refer to non-Hasidic black-hat communities. I live in Jerusalem, and although I'm not exactly Chareidi, I have many relatives and friends who are. You might be right, though. The term "Lithunian Jewry" is also sometimes used to refer to non-Hasidic black hat groups, although these include those of Hungarian and Russian ancestry as well. I'll try to do some more research. Scorpiuss 13:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Haredi is used to refer to both Hassidic Jews and non-Hassidic black-hat/Yeshivish/Agudah Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw, thanks to all of the people who have been editing the Jewish topics on Wikipedia. Thanks in large part to G-d allowing me to encounter Wikipedia, I am now a Baal Teshuvah for...well, something around 2 years now. Also, to the gentleman attempting to categorize Orthodoxy into 3 groups, what is "Centrist Orthodox"? I find that to be a really hard term to describe. Didn't make any edits, just trying to help my fellow Jews out. yodamace1

Yodamace1, I'm thrilled to hear Wikipedia has been such a help in learning about Judaism. It is a reminder to us all how much care we should take to represent topics in this field adequately.

Centrist Orthodoxy is a new-ish term for Modern Orthodoxy (I've also heard "Open Orthodoxy" used by some advocates), attempting to merge adherence to halakha with involvement in the world at large. It has such spokespeople as Rabbis Norman Lamm and Emmanuel Rackman. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, I just found out that R. Lamm coined the term...so I guess there aren't "three groups". yodamace1

[edit] Hebrew naming conventions

Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction currently contains a list of seven tennents, which seem to be a partly from the 13 principles of the Rambam (Maimonidies), as well as some other stuff that I don't recognize. "The centrality of yeshivas as schools of Talmudic study and learning", for example, isn't something I've ever heard stated by any of the past Gedolim (sages) as a basic principle of faith. Yeshivot (plural for yeshiva) are merely a method for transmitting Judaism to the next generation.

I recommend that this be changed to either the Rambam's principles of faith (the 13 "Ani Ma'amin"'s), or some other list which I can't think of now but has a similar solid foundation within Judaism. To have a bunch of people gather together and define Orthodoxy without either (1) citing where they found it and/or (2) having it come directly from age-old sources seems almost ironic in nature. - eykanal, 5:10 PM EST, Dec 12, 2005

Good point. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So what defines Orthodox Judaism? What makes it different from the other denominations? This is a very tough question. The Conservatives have voluminous literature in which they claim adherence to the 13 principles, although this will be disputed by the Orthodox. Alternatives are the Albo's three Ikkarim: belief in One God, the Divinity of the Torah and Personal Divine Intervention. Even that is open to interpretation.

In all honesty, I would prefer basing the intro on the Albo, with a source. It may actually be worthwhile pointing out that belief in the eternal authority of halakha is the only true defining characteristic, as Conservatives generally hold that halakha is determined by time-dependent dynamics and can be revoked due to social/political/natural change. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, a word of caution... "Divinity of the Torah" is misleading...it should be Inspiration of the Torah". As for what defines Orthodoxy vis à vis "the other denominations", I would have to say that it's chief characteristic is that it is not a schismatic denomination, but rather a convenient catch-all for observant traditional jewish communities, in much the same way as "Mizrachi" is a convenient catchall for non-Ashkenazim and non-Sfaraðim. Tomer^talk 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox (United & Federation) Shuls in UK

UK orthodoxy seems to be missing. Could it either be added to this article or a link be made to another?

[edit] Rabbinical Worldvew

There is currently a statement, in the characteristics of Orthodox Judaism,

• Judging the world outside, at any point in history and time, by the principles and guidance of what is presented and taught in the Torah/Talmud/Aggadah/Halakha primarily through the viewpoint of rabbis and their rabbinical literature.

This is a controversial statement and removing it should not be considered vandalism. It does not describe all of Orthodox Judaism. Rambam, the founder of the school combining Orthodox faith with acceptance of scientific rationalism, pointed out that while the Rabbis of the Talmud were gifted halachists these gifts did not extend to all of human knowledge generally, and he described them as giving generally poor advice on medicine, astronomy, etc. Much of Modern Orthodox Judaism follows Rambam on this and accepts things like evolution, regards much of Agaddah and Midrash as legend rather than fact, etc. Moreover its very philosophy is to combine rabbinic and modern outlooks. This statement doesn't accurately describe all of Orthodox Judaism and it shouldn't be included here. It perhaps should be included in the description of Haredi Judaism, which often does not accept the descriptive theory of evolution etc. Shirahadasha

I agree with you Sshirahadasha. Although I'm not Modern Orthodox, there are certainly a number of things that could be corrected on this article. I changed the intro to the article from something that incorrectly indicated that all Orthodox Jews keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. This is simply not true... in fact, I'm under the impression that there are actually very few Orthodox Jews who try to strictly keep halakha according to the Shulhhan Arukh. Most Orthodox Jews more or less just use the Shulhhan Arukh as a framework of halakha to work with, but at the same time diverge from it on a number of points, instead following opposing views of any one of its many commentators. The previous intro to Orthodox Judaism also seemed to exclude Baladi Yemenite Jews, Dor Daim, ... even many Shami Yemenite Jews, as well as talmedhei haRambam (a fairly quickly growing community of Jews from various edot who keep halakha according to the Mishneh Torah)... and not to forget the Romaniote Jews, who don't/didn't claim to go by Talmud Bavli at all -- over Talmud Yerushalmi -- and although I'm sad to say that this small community is on the brink of termination, I'm aware personally of a non-Romaniote group of Jews here in Jerusalem who have adopted the same approach. Anyone who wants references should just click on the links to the already existing articles related to these various groups Omedyashar 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Although some valid points are made in the above comments (such as the MO attitude towards evolution and scientific rationalism), the main point of the offending sentence is, in my opinion, certainly germane. If indeed one believes, as the Rambam, that when the Talmud speaks about Medicine etc. it does not have binding authority, that merely is stating that the Talmud itself had that opinion as well; i.e. that its statements about medicine were not binding. However, one would be hard pressed to find an Orthodox Jewish opinion that disagrees with the Talmud's worldview. Perhaps it can be said - indeed it certainly can be said - that anyone disagreeing with the Talmud's worldview is in fact not Orthodox. After all, belief in the divinity of the Torah mandates a belief in the reality of that Torah. A reality as real as the ground we walk on.

Wait - I just thought of something- maybe there is a claimed adherent to orthodoxy who would disagree....Avi Weiss perhaps?.....maybe Shirahadasha can clarify that.....38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Legalistic"

The article states "Orthodox Jews maintain that contemporary Orthodox Judaism maintains the same basic philosophy and legalistic framework that existed throughout Jewish history."

The word legalistic, it seems to me, has perjorative connotations and is not a NPOV. It is a term often used to connote adherence to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. While Orthodox Jews adhere to the law, many would take exception to the notion that they do not adhere to its spirit. The term legal would be more neutral than legalistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. F (talk • contribs) .

Seems the same to me, but if you think it makes the article better, go for it. Oh, and welcome to wikipedia!. Just a helpful tip: if you type ~~~~ at the end of your post on talk pages, it will automaticly make a "signiture". This makes it easier to keep track of who said what. Jon513 17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frum here?

Is this link for advertising? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrast with other movements in Intro

Removed the sentence on contrast with other movements because the intro paragraph to other movements in judaism discusses only the subject movement. However, other movement articles have contrast and/or criticism sections or spin-off articles, and this one doesn't. (the Modern Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism articles have both.) Suggest that such a section (or sections) would be an appropriate addition consistent with the way the rest of the encyclopedia is organized. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Criticism?

Why isn't there a criticism section? There's an entire page dedicated to criticism of Conservative Judaism - it seems a little unfair that there isn't even a small blurb about it here. Chaiya 04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold. --Shirahadasha 06:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shulchan Aruch and the word "developed"

The authority of the Shulchan Aruch is NOT claimed to be a fundamental tenet of ANY stream of Orthodoxy. The only truly fundamental texts in Orthodoxy are the Torah and Talmud. Any code, including the Shulchan Aruch is subject to scrutiny so as to ascertain its correlation with the Talmud. Claiming otherwise would imply that ARizal and Vilna Gaon are at best not Orthodox, and at worst, heretical. You may wish to argue this logical strain--but it is NEVER argued in Orthodoxy (and never has been by any significant stream or group of authorities). Some may have claimed that a certain person is heretical, but never because it desagreed with the Shulchan Aruch...but because it fundamentally disagreed with the Talmud. In his Introduction to the Chaye Adam, Rabbi Danzig even asserts that the Shulchan Aruch alone has NO authority per se, but that the true accepted codes of reference are the Beith Iosef and Darkhei Moshe, corresponding with the Shulchan Aruch (Caro) and the Mapah (Isserless), respectively. That being said, these works revolve around the Tur (Arbaa Turim), and are actually analytical works attempting to analyze scholarly discussion regarding Talmudic interpretation. Would you then say that the Tur is actually the true authority. NO! The Tur admits defending and borrowing heavily from his father, the Ro"sh, who is one among many Rishonim attempting to elucidate the proper meaning of the Talmud. THAT carries true authority.

The word "developed" was used to refer to the activities of the GAonim, Rishonim etc. I understand the temptation to use this word, however, develop may mean to bring into existence what did not before exist. Orthodoxy can be more appropriately understood if we use only the word "applied". The Torah, written and oral, is seen as a sufficient and coherent source of all understanding and wisdom. The question of whether other sources exist is a different question, and is usually answered in the affirmative. However, the question of whether other sources are reliable, how reliable those sources are, and how one knows which sources they are, are matters of great contention. The job of a Posek is to understand the situation at hand and apply to it the coherent Talmudic system. The wide reliance on preexisting codes is simply so that every Posek need not reinvent the wheel, and may utilize past modes and methods of analysis and application.

I shall adjust the article accordingly unless i hear objections 70.107.120.55Shigaon

I see no problem with the word "development". Jon513 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Ish Chai and KAf Hachaim

It should also be noted that they are not appealing to the Ben Ish Chai's authority but actually to the KAbbalistic authority of the Arizal, who is being interpreted by the Ben Ish Chai. ~~Shigaon

[edit] 13 principles

The article states:

Belief in the thirteen Jewish principles of faith as stated by the Rambam (Maimonides);

A1b2c3d8 (talk · contribs) changed it to:

According to many but not all, belief in the thirteen Jewish principles of faith as stated by the Rambam (Maimonides)

While there is disagreement among the reshonim of at what point one becomes a heretic there is almost no argument of the truth of the principles. And while there is some disagreement about the extend of a few of the principles (who wrote the last few verses of the Torah for example) no one orthodox rejects a principle outright. User:A1b2c3d8's edit implies that a minority of orthodoxy believes that some of the 13 principles are not true. There is no such minority. At the same time the 13 principles are not written in stone, there is no serious disagreement in orthodox about their veracity. Jon513 17:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Dland's remarks on my talk page: I have read The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised by Marc B. Shapiro and his point is that there are legitimate opinions that conflict with the way the rambam stated a principle (for example the last few verses of the Torah were not written by Moses), but never does he quote any opinion that reject a principle outright. I am not against rewriting the sentence to be more accurate but the revision we are discussing makes it significantly less accurate. Jon513 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book on me, and I don't remember every point that Shapiro made, but as for the example that you mentioned - the Rambam holds that you must believe that every verse of the Torah, down to the letter, was given l'Moshe mi-Sinai -- directly from Hashem. R' Yosef Albo and the Abarbanel (I think) would disagree with that statement, so in that sense, they would reject that principle outright. There are other examples as well, and I could probably dig them up on some JBlog or another with enough time and patience, even without the book.--DLand^TALK 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

R' Yosef Albo does not reject the principle. he believes it is true but not a principle of faith. That is, someone who does not believe it is not a heretic, but is simply wrong. According to the many opinions, one who believe that the books of the prophets are written by multiple authors is not a heretic but he is still %100 wrong - there is absolutely no orthodox thought that would support such a statement. Jon513 20:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I was too hasty about R' Albo. But the Ibn Ezra definitely says this, controversially. Just look it up, Deut. 34:1. (I'm reading it right now.) Today this has been roundly rejected, mainly because the Rambam's view is the mainstream one. But to say that no Orthodox thought would support it is incorrect.--DLand^TALK 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote-style citation

Hi! Wikipedia, in an effort to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, has created a template to suggest movement to footnote-style citation throughout Wikipedia. I've added it to this article. Footnote citations should give enough information to enable a non-expert to verify a claim, including edition and page numbers for off-line publications. See WP:CITE for more information. Because verifiers can't realistically go through a large list of books etc. to verify an individual statement, controversial statements which do not have footnote-style citations can still be challenged as unverified until they have a footnote provided for them despite the list of references at the bottom. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hasidic Jews and The Baal Hatanya

The article states that Hasidic Jews follow The Shulchan Aruch Harav. I only know of one very unique and idiosyncratic (not to mention socially disconnected from all the other Hasidic dynasties) Hasidic group that follows it? Can you name others? Most Hasidic groups are Chaga"s, not Chaba"d and are unlikely to follow it.

I am adding Chabad Lubavitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.131.31 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Practice

I edited the last paragraph of the "In Practice" section. It seemed to have been written with a very narrow perspective of Orthodox Jewish "practice". The paragraph mentioned, with no introduction, that (I paraphrase, since I already edited it) "Women never reveal their hair to anyone but their husbands... and orthodox Jews have large families." Both points are inaccurate and slightly out of context. If one were to mention Orthodox practice, I don't think the first thing that would come to mind is women hair covering, or large families. First, many orthodox women do reveal hair. Second, there is no real obligation to cover ones hair inside the home. Also, not all Orthodox Jews have large families, nor is it feasible for all Orthodox Jews to have large families. Also, there is no strict obligation for Orthodox Jews to have large families. Please correct my grammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.43.246.129 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent photo

Re the photo of "Orthodox Couple on Shabbat": It is very doubtful that an Orthodox couple would voluntarily permit themselves to be photographed on Shabbat. For this reason, I am wondering if this photo represents a privacy violation. Is this different from any other situation where someone is photographed in a context where a person would obviously not wish to be photographed? My concern here is not with legal issues, but with Wikipedia's general approach to privacy. No encyclopedic purpose is served -- we could equally well take a picture of a couple on a Tuesday. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Israel has a very liberal Freedom of panorama law, allowing even works of art in the public sphere to be photographed with no copyright problems. The couple here were out on a crowded plaza near the Western Wall. There were tons of tourists and people milling about. They could not have had an expectation of privacy (the law in the U.S.) in such a place. So there are no privacy or copyright problems here. I actually think it's an excellent photo. --David Shankbone 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The solution is very simple. Don't specify "on Shabbat." --Gilabrand (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If there's no relevant prohibition in Israeli law, and they're standing in a public place, which if they're that devout they shouldn't be doing anyway, I don't see why we need to rename a photo to protect the sensitivities of some haredim. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to support the claim that devout Jews aren't allowed to stand in a public place? That's nonsensical. I'm taking off the "on Shabbat", which is gratuitous and offensive. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Hasid couple" is like "Jew couple". It's "Hassidic". -LisaLiel (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

They should be at home resting. And in no way is specifying on Shabbat in the slightest bit justifiably offensive to anyone. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what "rest" means in Judaism, or you wouldn't say such a thing. They aren't doing anything that constitutes melacha in the picture, so your statement is incorrect. Again. Furthermore, it is not only offensive, but more to the point, it's unnecessary and unverifiable. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unverifiable? David, author of this image, may I ask you for what reason did you name it "Image:Orthodox couple on Shabbat in Jerusalem by David Shankbone.jpg". Was it taken on a Saturday by any chance?

While the couple are technically not doing anthing wrong, they are also not doing any of the recommended stuff either, which is what prompted my comment. And I think you need to stop hurling out claims of my alleged ignorance when you don't even seem to know what verifiable means. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Arbitration Committee, in this ruling, stated that Wikipedia policies incorporate voluntary ethical obligations which are independent of law and legal duties. Generally speaking, Wikipedia should not report on non-notable private persons in ways they would regard as compromising. My concern here is with Wikipedia policies, not law. I understand the arbcom case was about an article rather than an image, but I believe the same principles should apply. Consider, by way of analogy, a serreptitious photo of someone taking an emergency bathroom break by the side of the road. Such a photo may well be legal. Many Wikipedians may well believe there's nothing wrong with nudity or natural body functions and people misguided enough to feel that's it's not a situation when they would want to be photographed are wrong and they should be re-educated to learn the error of their ways. Perhaps so. But for otherwise non-notable people the issue is whether the people photographed would feel invaded and whether they have an understandable basis for feeling that way, not whether Wikipedians personally agree with that basis. It's very clear to me that I could summarily remove a serruptitious photograph of a person taking a bathroom break by the side of the road and the Arbcom would back me. What's the difference here? I'm willing to ask the question and listen to discussion before acting. But legality has nothing to do with it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference being that one photo is of people standing around doing nothing and the other is of someone doing something they would generally never voluntarily perform in front of someone else. The two simply are not analogous at all. Maybe if the couple were kissing it would different because they wouldn't want to be seen doing that in public but just looking moody is hardly a violation of privacy. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:Arbitration Committee, in this ruling, characterized the policy this way:

Basic human dignity Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

You may well feel there's nothing undignified about being photographed on Shabbat involuntarily. But why should your values be the ones that control here? Take a closer look and notice how the couple is trying their best to look away from the camera. What feelings do you think their posture and body language are expressing? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"But why should your values be the ones that control here?" I'm sorry, why exactly should yours? Because you're Orthodox and therefore Wikipedian values are beneath your own? I beg you to point out where in that above statement it says "Don't take pictures of people on their religious holidays" or indeed, where the photo in question "mocks or disparages" its subject. How are we "victimizing" these people by showing them, two people, relaxing against a wall? It helps to illustrate the article where it has been placed. You don't even seem to be bothered that the image was made on Shabbat, just that it is labelled thus. This seems to have little to do with privacy, victimization, or any of these policy statements you're quoting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm having a great deal of difficulty trying to comprehend the issue you're raising. As a religion we don't believe in pictures taking away people's souls, and the fact that these individuals were photographed on what happened to be Shabbat, would not seem to make it any more offensive than if the photo had been taken on Sunday through Friday. The individuals do not seem to be avoiding a picture, which most people would do by lowering their heads or covering their faces, not shifting into three-quarter profile; I assume it was a candid photo. If the photograph had been taken at any other time, or let's say on Friday afternoon before sundown I presume you'd have no objection. Your analogy of "It's very clear to me that I could summarily remove a serruptitious photograph of a person taking a bathroom break by the side of the road and the Arbcom would back me." would seem to be rather far-fetched as a comparison to me or to anyone at Arbcom. Would you object as strenuously to a photo taken at the Kotel or inside of a shul on Shabbat or Yom Tov? Would labeling the photo as "Hasidic couple in Shabbat garb" address the issue? Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dev920, there is no law that says a religious person must "rest at home" on Shabbat. And there is no reason whatsoever to state that the photo was taken on Shabbat, or that it was taken near the Western Wall. The purpose of it being on this page is to show what a "Hasidic couple" might look like. It is an illustration, a generic image. The details are irrelevant. David Shankbone is right about Israel having a liberal policy on the subject of photography in public places. He can snap pictures to his heart's content, but that doesn't mean they should appear on Wikipedia with a caption that pokes fun at somebody's religious beliefs. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that there is no law, and I have never said any such thing. Generally speaking, we date generic images, and this is what I'm trying to do here. I have now changed the caption to refelect the date rather than the place (you can't see the Kotel anyway). But I love the way you're all speculating about whether this photo pokes fun of these people's religious beliefs as if we know what those religious beliefs even are. There's no law which says you can't be photographed, only that you can't photograph. Which is different, especially as the photo was taken by a non-Jew. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong here in thinking that the couple's posture indicates that they don't want to be photographed, but this is the way it looked to me. I'm open to others' input that my view is incorrect. I'm not suggesting that the couple is being mocked or disparaged. I'm suggesting that photographing them in a context where they wouldn't want to be photograph based on their own values (not necessarily mine) could result in a situation where they might feel their dignity wasn't being respected. This is a lesser and more amorphous standard than mocking or disparaging, and involves no issue of intent. I would note the encyclopedic benefit doesn't seem great - there are many images we could have chosen from which wouldn't have such a potential issue. Once again I'm not suggesting the photograph was intended to poke fun at anything. The only (much milder) issue is that this appears to me to be a situation where the couple, for reasons I can empathize with, did not want to be photographed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't actually know whether this couple gave permission or not to be photographed. David, did they know at all? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The couple were unaware of my presence photographing them. --David Shankbone 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me, after reading Gilabrand's comment about Shabbat garb again, that the man in the picture is wearing a shtreimel, which hassidic married men only wear on Shabbat. To prevent misunderstandings, therefore, we should either find another picture of a hasidic couple (of the same quality), or clearly label the image as taken on Shabbat. Possible we should also add something about "shabbat garb"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You should read the article on shtreimel, which you linked. It's not only worn on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The guy could have been to a bris that day. Since there's no danger of misunderstanding, as you suggested, we don't need to label it as having been taken on Shabbat. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So therefore it's even more important to note the occaison. Instead, you want to leave it as ambiguous as possible to suit your own religious views. Shall we delete the article on Reform Judaism as it does not conform to your values too? As an encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to give our readers as much verifiable information as we can, and this includes the dates of images. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Date, maybe. Day of week? Nope. There's nothing informative about stating it. It offends without any compensatory value. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is such an amazing non-issue; it is incredible that someone would object to labeling the picture as taken on shabbat. What is more germane, in my opinion, is why all the pictures are of hassidim? Could someone not find a picture of a non-hassid and post it? Many many orthodox jews dress in a different manner than hassidm- distinctly jewish, yet clean cut and sophisticated. Perhaps someone could post different pictures.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My issue isn't with the label. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo in question here does not have any connection to Shabbat. It looks like a Gerrer couple sitting around somewhere. Or perhaps it's another Hasid wearing a fashionable higher and thicker shtreimel. If the guy is wearing a spodik he is a married Ger Hasid (umarried males wear only black hats.) They wear spodiks (and other married Hasidim wear shtreimels) even during the week quite often when they go to weddings or sheva brochas or attend any sort of the plentiful family simchas that they eagerly attend during any day of the week. So there is no way this photo shows or proves it's about Shabbat only, it does not enhance the topic of this article in any way. It should go in the Shtreimel or Spodik articles. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't know what the fuss is about whether it is Shabbat or not; but the photo was taken outside the gate leading to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, sundown, Shabbat. Whether other people choose to believe that is irrelevant and as a non-Jew I don't see how it being Shabbat makes a difference one way or another; still, it's just factual. --David Shankbone 20:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi David Shankbone: My point is not to question anyone when they took it. It is that this photo has no explicit connection or relationship with Shabbat per se. You may as well have taken photos of two goats walking through Jerusalem on Shabbat, it would not depict or have any connection to Shabbat. The photo does not show any Shabbat activity. It is just a Hasidic couple dressed up. Post the photo in the Hasidic Judaism article with a sub-title of "Hasidic couple" and it would be 100% spot on, but as it stands, this picture has zero connection to the subject of Shabbat itself. It's just about Haredi/Hasidic people sitting or standing around and proves and adds nothing to or about Shabbat. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought it was a "controversial" statement and I couldn't figure out why, but that's a reasonable argument. --David Shankbone 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool it guys, let’s give David Shankbone the benefit of the doubt: He most probably took the photo using a “shabbat camera”! Chesdovi (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Without having read the entire discussion, let me throw in a remark. A couple going to a wedding / sheva broches / bris would not go to the kosel in their shabbos dress. Further, this dress is most definitely identified with shabbos - after all, it's called 'shabbesdik'. The picture was taken on the steps just before the kosel, above the bus stop and gate of the plaza, from where you see the Kosel, al-Aqsa and Har HaZeisim. You don't usually see people wearing shabbos dress there other than on 1) shabbos, 2) yom tov, 3) chol hamoed, 4) purim. "Hey, let's go to the kosel before we go to the wedding"? *confused*. One more remark: I personally wouldn't mind it if non-Jews photographed me on shabbos in a non-conspicuous way (I mean, I won't go shouting at them or so). But the woman in the picture most definitely does mind. Please read up on tznius. I can very definitely assure you that the woman in the picture would be very insulted by having her picture on Wikipedia. And rest assured that you will never see my wife on a picture on wikipedia! Signed, a shtreimel-wearing yerushalaimer chussid. --85.250.49.159 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can ascertain what a person would think, but this photo was taken with a telephoto lens, so the couple had no idea they were being photographed. --David Shankbone 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then, and assume that you simply didn't know enough about Orthodox Jewish mores and had no idea that posting her picture publically would be inappropriate. Now, however, I hope that you'll take that information to heart and bear it in mind the next time you go around snapping pictures. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also the shtreimel is a normal one, not a spodik or so. It's very slightly higher than average. Mine is similar to it - that's our minhag, Dushinsky. Don't know which other groups wear it like that. But these two are not Dushinsky (seeing the women's kisui rosh). These two don't belong to any of the Meah Shearim-based groups. Also, the man wears long pants. Then there are the peyos - right, if I'd have to make a guess, I'd say they could very well be Vizhnitzers (Bnei Brak). Perhaps Belz, but they don't wear their peyos like that, and I happen to know some Vizhnitzers who do. --89.138.163.217 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After serious reflection and due consideration, it is my conclusion that the couple in question are, in fact, American tourists in Jerusalem for Shabbat.

If I may, my reasoning:

• Consider both the crossed arms and the vaguely curious and reflective expressions exhibited by both husband and wife...indicative of both "tourist" and, quite frankly, "american".....
• Consider that the husband is dressed in the manner of the Belzers (as pointed out previously by a fellow Wikipedian), yet his "brillen" are the type worn by American Hassidim.....
• Consider that, if the previous point is valid, then it follows that the "vieb" (or wife, for those less educatd then myself) is wearing an unacceptable amount of makeup for Israeli Belzers, and is not wearing a double-decker (hat on Sheitel, again for those plebs).....

Counter-arguments?....38.117.213.19 (talk)

(a) I don't get the relevance of where they live. (b) They could have come originally from the US, and anything you're suggesting would apply equally. (c) See point (a). -LisaLiel (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really, stop being so aggressive Lisa. It's not going to get you any further. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I being aggressive? The editor asked for counter-arguments. I supplied them. I think you need a reminder in WP:AGF. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the articles Humor, and Irony.38.117.213.19 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my main thought now is not the provenence of the couple, but more the fact that the image has been removed from the article with the edit summary "at request of couple". Said couple surely cannot be aware of themselves being on WIkipedia unless they were informed thus, so should we AGF or not? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - I'm not going to war over one photo over thousands, although whether the couple or their supporters like it or not there is full legal authority to photograph anybody in public. Israel has more liberal freedom of panorama laws than the United States. I also note it was the only photograph of a woman on the Hasidic Jew page. I guess they are all male. --David Shankbone 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David, please read what I wrote on January 15th. I will repeat it once more: But the woman in the picture most definitely does mind. Please read up on tznius. I can very definitely assure you that the woman in the picture would be very insulted by having her picture on Wikipedia. And rest assured that you will never see my wife on a picture on wikipedia! Hasidic women most definitely do not appreciate having pictures of them taken by strangers who put them on the internet. I can absolutely assure you that this woman very much minds being photographed by you and being put on Wikipedia - and I do not blame you for this, because you did not know this. But now that you do know this - and by the way, all other Orthodox Jewish Wikipedians can confirm this for you - you should take this into account and acknowledge it. --85.250.134.251 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be better to say that you suspect or believe she minds than to say that you have personal knowledge that she minds. As I understand it, you are raising a general objection to a woman being photographed in a way that is publicly displayed as an issue of Tzniut and "The entire glory of the king's daughter is within the palace" (Psalms 45:14), which is a somewhat different issue from the issue of Shabbat. Is this the issue you are raising? Note that a Modern Orthodox Jewish woman would not necessarily have such an objection. In all candor, I'm not sure the Wikipedia community would go along with construing a man's say-so on general grounds, as distinct from the personal say-so of the woman herself, as appropriate to invoking WP:BLP#Basic human dignity with regard to a woman on such a matter. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• None of this is a concern of a photographer working within the law. We are there to capture moments. If every time there was a bus bombing in Israel, do you think the press asks the wounded people being helped if they mind having their photos put in the press during such a tragic moment in their lives? Laws are written in a way that allow for all of our rights to be recognized, and that includes the right to photograph the world around us as we see it. Do you think all the people praying at the Western Wall having their photos taken gave some kind of consent? The answer to all of these objections is that if a person has an issue with being photographed, they should not go to a tourist-soaked destination like the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Empire State Building in New York. Stay away from these places. Which is why the law in Israel--where freedom of panorama photography laws are more liberal than the United States--the Jewish state, is written the way it is. This couple is not in their living room, but standing next to the largest tourist attraction in the middle east. So, let's get real. And we don't use Sharia law, or Halkhic law, or Biblical law, to ascertain what we do and do not photograph on Wikipedia. This is a secular project. --David Shankbone 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff expressly rejected the idea that Wikipedia's responsibilities are limited to what is legal, and explicitly required considering ethical obligations with respect to subject privacy and reputation. These obligations were incorporated into WP:BLP#Basic human dignity.
• Ethical privacy- and reputation-related obligations apply to photographs as well as articles.
• In implementing "do no harm" obligations, Wikipedia editors should consider not only their own personal beliefs and norms regarding privacy and reputation but the beliefs and norms of the subjects involved, taking into account the context of the subjects' own environment.
• A person in another culture, may, in the context of that culture, feel unduly embarassed or harmed by circumstances that European or American cultures might not find embarassing or harmful. We should take these circumstances into consideration in making decisions, recognizing that subjects feel harm from damage to their reputation and sensitivities in their own peer communities, not necessarily in ours.
• The above discussion seems to indicate a lack of consensus that this photo represents such a case.
• They also suggest caution in assessing whether religious norm violations rise to the level of forms of embarassment warranting WP:BLP privacy concerns, although such a conclusion may still be warranted in other cases.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point: there is no religious or cultural considerations here. Please point me to where photographing women in public is against Judaism or Israeli culture. I can put you in touch with the head of public relations in the Israel foreign ministry who will dispute you. This photography mission was sponsored by the Israeli government exactly to produce photographs of Israeli society. All of these arguments that are being raised here are academic, and "what ifs". If there are problems with the photograph existing, then it needs to be raised at Commons; that won't be decided here on the Orthodox Judaism page. As such, I find most of your points irrelevant to the photo at hand. Alot of this seems to be just pointless arguing based on "What ifs" and guesswork ("they look annoyed by the photographer") that has no basis in reality. --David Shankbone 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And with that excellent point by David, I am going to readd the photo. I would also like to iterate that the right to privacy established (wrongly, IMO, but we've can't have everything) in Badlydrawnjeff has little to do with religious people feeling their values being ignored. If I had stood outside the couple's window, any time of the day or night, and photographed it's contents, I should be in violation of the privacy policy. Taking photographs of people standing in public places, whether they desire to be photographed or not, is not within that remit. If it were, there would be no images on any of the embarrassing scandalous incidents that have articles on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note this guy looks totally pissed off, even though he gave full permission for the photo to be released. So don't bet everything on looks. They might have just seen a smacked puppy or something. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the people in the photo (or the woman only) contact me and tell me the photo has caused them embarassment or similar harm in their community and I can be reasonably sure of their identity and that this is their actual wishes, I'll exercise my discretion and remove it, mindful of the fact that we could equally well use any of thousands of photos to illustrate this particular article. This discussion suggests that we don't have a basis for assuming this is the case. But to give an example of another case where I would take religious values into account without asking, if there's a serruptitious photo showing a non-notable religious Muslim women's knee or hair accidentally revealed and it causes her the same embarassment that a Western woman feels at a surreptitious photo showing something that would embarass Westerners, I would treat the two cases the same way. I wouldn't impose my own values to make a judgement that the Western woman's feelings are worthy and the Muslem women's feelings are unworthy, or vice versa. It's not for me to tell her that her feelings of harm are invalid. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe two issues are being confused in the previous comment. One issue is the the matter of making a "judgement" of someone else's views. A second, and completely unrelated issue, is the matter of being careful not to hurt someone's feelings, even when you believe the reason for the hurt is irrational. Please let us not mindlessly confuse the two. The first issue is ridiculous- after all if you have your own opinion you have already made the judgement that other differing opinions are incorrect. The second issue is indeed valid. To quote a great baal mussar: when you take a toy away from a child, you have caused pain as great as when you take a car away from an adult.

As far as the photo is concerned: It may be true that theoretically the woman in question would object if she had knowledge of her picture being on Wikipedia. However this line of reasoning is a slippery slope that could be used to object to the inclusion of almost any picture of an Orthodox Jew. It is extremely doubtful that the first picture (of the yid with the briskers) was posted with his knowledge, and could be objected to on the same grounds. I am not advocating using pictures of people against their specific known objection. I merely advocate that until such an objection is received, the picture be viewed as a generic images that is only representative. 38.117.213.19 (talk)

P.S.On a personal note, I dislike the picture and believe that for variety's sake pictures of other strands of Orthodoxy should be used...just a thought.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just spent twenty minutes yesterday looking through the commons to find images of Modern Orthdox Jews, but came up emptyhanded. Know anyone who will oblige us? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break

Quite an exhaustive discussion above regarding this contentious photo, but can we simplify things? The photo may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right to include it here. The photographer admits it was taken with a telephoto lens, so the couple were unaware they were being photographed -- that's sneaky. A couple in Jerusalem can't wait for a bus without having their image taken from afar, and posted on a medium that reaches the world? Are they representative of all Hasidic couples? Maybe not, and maybe they don't want that notoriety. Maybe it was chilly that night, so they had their arms folded. Maybe they were arguing, or maybe they were disgusted the bus was late, maybe they had indigestion. Maybe the image doesn't depict them the way they would want to be depicted. There are just too many maybe's.

This image does not contribute significantly to the article and the article will stand fine in its absence.

(Content removed by admin per WP:NPA)

Remove this contentious and unnecessary photo without any reservation whatsoever.

--72.68.28.50 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're rather missing the point. The photo may not be representative of ALL Hasidic couples, but then no photo will ever be representative of an entire demographic. But you're assuming they are representative - in fact you're assuming that this couple agree exactly with you. Allow me to add some other maybes - maybe they don't object to having photos taken. Maybe they wanted to use a mobile phone and realised they couldn't. Maybe they would be pleased that all the images of Jews on Orthodox Judaism are of hassidim. Maybe they edit Wikipedia and wanted to get back to it. You don't know. You know nothing about this couple, and you know nothing about their life, their views, and whether they would allow this image of themselves on an educational article about Orthodoxy.

This image was added by David because he had just come back from a trip to Israel, saw a illustrative gap, and filled it with a good quality image. All his critics have used any excuse to remove it - it's unnecessary (as indeed are all images on Wikipedia if we judge them by the same criteria), the couple are obviously annoyed at being photographed (even though they didn't know they were), David is gay (quite possibly the bizarrest and frankly, stupidest, excuse I have ever seen) - and completely missed both the reality of the situation and its elegant solution: Wikipedia needs images to illustrate and reflect the content of its articles; this article is no exception. If the current image of hassidim is not to your taste, CREATE ANOTHER ONE. I take a high percentage of the people reading this to be frum Orthodox Jews, is it really so bloody hard to get a heterosexual to take a photo of yourselves or your friends on a weekday smiling at the camera wearing typically Jewish garb in a well lit place? Really? Quit trying to replace the image with nothing using silly excuses and do it the Wikipedian way - creating something, bigger, better, faster, stronger oh wait that's Daft Punk... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am still utterly baffled by the hate-filled invective that derives over a perfectly useful photograph. The hyperanalysis of the circumstances, timing, body language, the day of week the picture was taken have all been used as excuses to demand its removal. The recent personal attack on the photographer only adds to the disgrace. It's well beyond time to move on and accept the picture. Every time I try to find the flaws that are supposed to be self-evident, what I find is a wonderful photograph. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the complaints of the IP perplexing, both the COI complaint (which was strange to say the least) and the complaint about this photo. There were two photos in a series. This is the second. The one on the page was taken first, and this one was taken second. I think they are nice, attractive couple out waiting for friends. It's nice to also be able to see that not all orthodox are men - the photos on Hasidic Judaism give the impression only men follow the faith. I think both photos are nice - thank you for the compliment Alan. My only question was whether I wanted the man or the woman facing the camera, and my choice is clear. --David Shankbone 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

More people want this image removed than want it retained. It's simple, consensus rules, and the image, and all its locations here, are removed. if it's restored, I encourage others to remove it forthwith. --71.127.239.108 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached. There is a difference of opinion here, but discussion, not invective, has to be the way to resolve it. Given that the series of IP addresses involved seem to have contributed only to this discussion but show familiarity with Wikipedia and past discussions on this issue, I am not treating them as separate voices for purposes of this discussion. It appears to be time to move on. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiratorial theory and speculation over machinations notwithstanding, the above discussion shows a consensus for removal, for which I am happy to act as agent. --72.76.88.170 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such consensus and therefore I have replaced them both. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here from the AN/I report. What I see on the talk is a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, combined with speculation supporting the IHATEIT mentality, versus a whole lot of 'well, we don't have to respect their feelings, because we're not hurting their dignity'. here's my first thought reading through this: Muhammed, where the image debate went on eons (and might still be raging). We have here, the same basic concept: Religious view VS. Wikipedia's policies, esp. 'we aren't a religiously oriented organization', and thus remain Neutral on that sort of thing. This isn't the article on Shabbos, so the date thing is truly irrelevant. This is on Orthodox Judaism, of whom Chassidim are a subset, and Gerrer (one hypothesis above) are a smaller subset. I see nothing wrong with illustrating the section on Orthodox sects with an image, and this one gives beautiful context to the section by showing a sliver of real life for such folk. Every argument brought to bear for inclusion of images on Muhammed will be brought to bear here, and ultimately, those seem to have won, because they are policy. Let's avoid 'Muhammed 2', accept that the image does no harm based on the known facts and no on our collective suppositions, and move on. No basic dignity was hurt here by the picture, just as we've determined that no basic dignity is lost by looking on respectful images of Muhammed on the WP page for him. Two people go out to one of the most importance locations in Western Religion, on shabbas, when thousands of non-jewish tourists would be there, and expect to NOT wind up in the background of a photo? Absurd. To assume that no one would think them striking enough to make them the anthropological subject of a photo "Oh, look Marge! Jews in their natural habitat! Click", is equally naive, and locals can be assumed to know that It's a tourist spot and tourists bring cameras. That's not some special knowledge that we must assert they'd have, it's common sense. For whatever value it has on this discussion (none.), I think they're just hanging out, unaware of the camera, esp. per DavidShankbone's admission of a telephoto lense and his assertions they didn't know. Leave it in, including the contextual caption, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If this were in fact an issue of basic human dignity, we would be advised (but not absolutely required) to follow that element of the BLP policy. I don't believe it is, however - in my mind basic dignity would need to be construed extraordinarily broadly in order to include being photographed in a public place near a tourist magnet. In all likelihood they will never be aware of the photograph and no one who knows them will see it. Even if that is not the case forever we can certainly remove it or discuss removing it again based on a request that provides incontrovertible evidence of their wishes. In the event we receive such a request we would still be under no obligation to remove the photo. ^Avruchtalk 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture was taken in bad taste with no regard for the feelings of those in it. It was rude to just do it without asking permission and it violated so many sensibilities. However, since this encyclopedia is not censored it can be used. However, perhaps a different pictures showing a Chassidic couple on Friday (previous to sunset) can be found instead? That would allow for a photo in full dress but without violating any sensibilities. Bstone (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammed is notable and long dead figure, but WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has specific language on non-notable living persons like the couple involved here requiring much greater protection of their privacy than is the case for people who are notable/dead. That language was recently strengthened by community consensus as a result of the discussion that took place here. I posted on WP:ANI to prevent this discussion from being disrupted by user behavior, not to stop it. It may well be that we simply don't know what this couple might think of this unless they tell us, and perhaps shouldn't presume or take action one way or the other. The intention is to be respectful, but not over-protective. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see how the presumption of privacy applies here. Leaving aside the problem that the section is about BLP articles (i.e. where the subject is covered in detail) it relates to conservatively including personal/private details of a subject/ not including people who are on the bare edge of notability. I don't see that as an issue here - those two had no reasonable expectation of privacy, aren't the subject of the article and their individual notability is irrelevant. ^Avruchtalk 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the BLP has nothing on unidentified people in pictures. There's no insult to human dignity here. It's a picture of two people outside in a public spot, apparently just enjoying the sunset. We know they made no objection to the photo, and we know they have no idea it was taken. Were this REALLY a problem among nations, no newsweekly magazine would publish even 1/3 of the photos they do press, for fear of spending the rest of eternity in some European court, explaining that journalism and freedom of the press supersedes the rights of rioting masses to privacy. This is way too much floundering about for an excuse to exclude, and not enough foundation on Wikipedia policy. We allow images of Muhammad despite the religious objections, and we should allow this for the same reasons. Further, there's no BLP violation, as we do not identify the persons, nor make ANY reporting about them, not even identifying the sect of Chassidism to which they belong. With no allegations of unsubstantiated fact, and no persons to allege them about, there can be no BLP. This is the same people finding each, every, and and all objections to the material, and not backing down, no matter how much they are refuted. I've yet to see a single substantial argument against inclusion, other than some prejudicial judgments about how observant they must be, based on hypotheses of editors miles and months apart of the incident with limited facts, and how much we must respect perceived expectations of observance levels, against based on hypotheses. There's not one argument for removal that holds up. Leave it in, or go argue to take out Muhammad, as that's all based in religion vs. policy as well. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people say that rationally there's nothing undignified about nudity or bodily functions, and one may well find it irrational for people to feel embarassed or harmed by photographs of them doing such things being displayed on Wikipedia, but rationality has nothing to do with it. People and communities have very different conceptions of what kind of things they find embarassing, That's why the word "reasonable" was recently removed from WP:BLP. See [1]. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That diff is disingenuous at best, Shirahadasha. That 'reasonable' refers specifically to whether or not admins can/will consider any request, or reasonable requests, meaning that all requests get read, and all requests will be either denied or allowed sooner or later. As for your argument that nudity is offensive, you've just gone right into what WP:NOT#CENSORED is about. In other words, readers still open cans of worms at their own discretion. Rationality, rather than have 'nothing to do with it', is all that NOT CENSORED is about. it's irrational to assert that we can both be a holistic Encyclopedia, and be one which removes anything which might offend someone. By that logic, we'd have NO articles on religion, politics, history, science, war, peace, love, death, or family guy. NPOV and NOTCENSORED go hand in hand with rational thought and logic. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that if an identifiable private, non-notable individual was surreptitiously photographed nude with a telephoto lens, even on public property, that photograph would be removed and Arbcom would back the admin who removed it. Photographs that display private individuals in ways that they did not ask for and that may subject them to public embarassment do have to be treated with some care and sensitivity. The question of what is considered embarassing does vary somewhat from culture to culture, and the standards of the subject's own culture, not just ours, do need to be taken into account. This Arbcom case flatly rejected the WP:NOT#CENSORED argument you made, and admins are bound by it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo was not taken on Shabbat

It seems lost on just about everybody that the photo was not taken after sundown. There is still plenty of light not only on the couple, but on the city behind them. --David Shankbone 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your point? ^Avruchtalk 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Shabbat only after Sundown on Friday? I don't really know. But this was taken on a Friday, before sundown. But since there was so much "Shabbat activity" and it was going to be sundown soon, I said Shabbat. I'm not Jewish, so I don't know, but that appears to be the main issue (since people are casually throwing around fervent arguments about what poor taste it was to take a photo in a public place around the biggest tourist attraction in the M.E.). --David Shankbone 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was taken on Saturday during the day, it's during the Sabbath (Shabbat) and religious Jews abstain from the use of electricity during Shabbat. Shabbat is from Friday sunset until Saturday a little after sunset. During this time period religious Jews enjoy to create an environment which is conducive to spirituality and people taking photos tends to taint that. If the couple was informed that someone took a photo of them on Shabbat in Jerusalem near the old city, and then posted it on wikipedia, they would be very upset. It further seems that the the BLP guidelines assumes they would want their privacy maintained. Bstone (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not Shabbat, and the BLP guideline makes no such assumption, individual users are making that assumption. --David Shankbone 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well, now that changed almost everything. It was taken on Friday before sunset and Shabbat had not yet begun. This removes a lot of the problem. Bstone (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the BLP, I am taking the que from the admin who is indicating that there may be an assumption of privacy. Bstone (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, or we would have issues with a very, very large amount of photographs on this site and we would need OTRS tickets for just about everything taken in a public place. "Public place" - not "private home". When people are in public, they have no reasonable assumption that they have "privacy". But if a registered user requests I upload an un-Photoshopped copy of this photo so that the date information does not get erased, then I will do so to show it is, indeed, on a Friday. --David Shankbone 23:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dur, I thought this whole thing started because everyone thought it was taken on a Saturday. If it was taken on a Friday during the day that is not nearly as much of problem, even for those who thought there was a big problem to begin with. ^Avruchtalk 23:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

May want to change the caption on the photo to say something like "Chassidic couple in Jerusalem on Friday before Shabbat." Bstone (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This does change things. The original concern was that a Hassidic couple might be uncomfortable being photographed on Shabbat and having the photograph displayed publicly. I think after considerable discussion, including comments by Orthodox Jewish editors, the general sense was that such an concern shouldn't be presumed -- a Chassidic couple wouldn't necessarily think the matter a big deal; some people in such a community might have a problem, but not everybody. I think a general concern about any photography of private individuals is outside the intended scope of the presumption of privacy and would be far-reaching enough that it ought to be agreed to explicitly rather than inferred from very general language. I supported the much more limited approach that a specific objection is needed, but the objection should be from the point of view of the subject and could arise from the subject's own community and mores. I think from recent discussions on and changes to WP:BLP, the sense seems to be that non-notable people should be allowed to object to material about them relatively freely, but we should let them object and not be over-sensitive in the absence of an objection. This is clearly an evolving area. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a moment

I recognize that guy I think. Isn't that a banned user, David something? He had a thread on ANI just this week or last. Lawrence § t/e 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive125#Block is the section I saw. It had a link to this this web album, posted by that user. Is that him in David's photos? Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Different fellow altogether. Bstone (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My eyes are not so good, and wanted to be sure. Lawrence § t/e 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Those two people look nothing in common....—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm half blind and apparently due to upgrade my eyeglass prescription again. Old age is a terrible thing. Lawrence § t/e 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible issue with Israeli law?

I lived in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem for a while from 1999-2001 while studying in yeshiva. I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert on international law. However, there are laws in Israel which protect holy places on the Sabbath and have explicit laws prohibiting use of electrical items when not an emergency. There are signs in Hebrew, English and Arabic saying such. While I don't know the exact location of the photo and it's difficult to say from the photo itself, the photographer has stated it was taken on Shabbat. As such, there may be a conflict with Israeli law. There may not. I don't know. I don't know how wikipedia deals with laws in foreign countries which say content on the project is illegal. Please don't shoot the messenger. Bstone (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of the signs in the kottel plaza itself. This picture was not taken there, but near there, up the street. There is no law in Israel which enforces shabbot observances on individuals. Jon513 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right about this at the Kotel Plaza itself. There may be more general laws about this in Israel as well, such as Basic Law:Human Dignity. Again, I am not a lawyer, but the law might be interpreted that it's wrong to take the picture of a Sabbath observant couple in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem (which is a Sabbath observant area) without the consent of the couple. Being they are Sabbath observant it's assumed they would object to it. Thoughts? This is all conjecture but we musn't rule out the possibility that this couple might one day look at this article (or have friends who do) and set forward a series of events which could lead to what I just described. Bstone (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just asked a friend who is an Israeli attorney. He says to the best of his knowledge this is legal despite the poor taste and cites a few Supreme Court. Do not take this as legal advice, however. Bstone (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the photo: The Voice of Reason!

About the photo:

• The photo is useful and belongs in the article. No doubt about that. It's hard to find photos of Hassidic women, as noted above. So, it belongs in the article.
• It's legal under Israeli law, according to David. And it's legal under Florida law, since Florida's privacy protection only extends to people within the United States and wouldn't apply to photos taken outside of the United States. Any uncertainty about the legality of the photo could be addressed by contacting User:Mikegodwin.
• The photo should be deleted and re-uploaded with the information about how it was taken on shabbat removed, to avoid claims of libel, defamation of character, and because the information is totally irrelevant and contentious. It does sort of appear almost like they're posing for the photo, so with the title "Orthodox couple on shabbat," it could be argued that the photo defames their character by suggesting that they violated halakha, which they did not.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To make the photo look a bit better, I did some cropping, airbrushing, and adjustment of the various properties of the photo.

The stuff I did:

• I cropped the photo, so that they are on the left. By doing this, it gives the photo more of the appearance that they are being photographed rather than posing for a photo.
• The woman's eyes were a bit shadowy and baggy. I airbrushed them.
• I airbrushed out the plastic cup on the ground, because it was ugly.
• I adjusted the brightness, contrast, and colors, to make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Skillful photoshopping, but less authentic (and not the photoshopping, but the naturalistic, journalistic vibe of the original) for the effort. I can see either going in, but the truly spontaneous nature of the original strikes me more than the other. Glamourizing seems to lose some of the value of the photo, but that's me. I'm neutral on which should go in, but agree the content is worth inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK, because magazines, newspapers, and probably even Britannica, regularly airbrush pictures to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Also, I didn't adjust the brightness, contrast, colors, etc., on my own, arbitrarily. I clicked "auto-adjust" on photoshop, it popped that out, and yeah, I thought it looks nicer and more real. But others might disagree.

I got rid of the plastic cup because I thought, in some subtle poetic way, it made the Jewish man look bad. I mean, both of them are just staring off into the distance and there's a piece of garbage in the front of them that they're totally oblivious to.

As for airbrushing the eyes, I just wanted to make her look a bit more beautiful, which is a good thing, I think. I was sure, though, to be sensitive about it. I had initially considered giving her rosier cheeks and\or coloring her lips, but then I realized it make look unnatural, and then we'd have somebody on here saying, "It looks like she's wearing make-up! Make-up is against halakha! This is an insult to my religion!!" So, I just lightly airbrushed the shadows under her eyes and the wrinkles in her cheeks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, what does it mean something looks "more real" when it's not real? The objective in including a picture is to reflect things as they are, not as we would want them to be, or interpret them to be. So makeup is a violation of the religous law? I see little difference between a woman applying makeup to cover various aspects of her face and an individual using an airbrush to conceal the same aspects. Does the law prohibit concealment or enhancement? Either way this picture is not necessary, and in its doctored form does not represent reality on the ground, and it should go. It was foisted on this article by an ego-maniacal editor who's currently convalescing. I'm removing it.

Um, no. To claim an image is contentious when you are the only person opposed to it is meaningless. The fact that the image has been edited by someone else to positive acclaim should tell you about whetehr this image was "foisted" onto the article or not. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is one thing. But deleting someone's contribution to the talk page is sure to get you banned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The original photo was foisted on this article by the ego-maniacal editor who is now convalescing. The doctored image is now being foisted on this article. I have no qualms about removing images from talk and I will continue to remove all incidences of this photo without any reservation whatsoever.--71.127.238.34 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit of 14:32, where you removed Dev920's added paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So you admit you intend to remove this photo regardless of what anyone else says? I see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikvah, family purity, etc.

An article on Orthodox Judaism with no treatment of mikvah and taharat mishpachah?? Okay, okay, I know I could just jump right in and do it myself, and maybe I will. I'm just amazed at the energy that went into the photo thing, when there are obviously more important issues to work on here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THE representative of Orthodox Jewry picture

I'm removing this page off my watch list because I'm tired of the illogical arguments raised on it. But I think it's funny that Gilabrand removed my photo from the lead with the note "This couple belongs to a certain Hasidic community - not THE representative of Orthodox Jewry, and hence inappropriate as the opening picture" but then Gila inserts his/her own photo of a blurry rabbi's ear as "THE representative of Orthodox Jewry" at the top of the article. Whatever. I'm taking this page off my watch list. --David Shankbone 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That picture of the "rabbi's ear" was there long before you ever parachuted into this article. I have no problem with your photo. I think it is quite good, in fact. But I don't believe it should be at the top because it illustrates a specific stream of Orthodoxy. Not everyone who comes to this article knows what Orthodox Jews look like. No, they don't have horns sticking out of their heads, and they don't (all) wear funny fur hats.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So instead they are all men who wear payots tucked behind their ears and have beards? Okay. --David Shankbone 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you'll just have to hang out at the local synagogue with your telephoto lens and snap some pictures of modern Orthodox people (try not to do it on Shabbat, and get a good shot of the length of the women's skirts while you're at it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilabrand (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're frustrated, David. It is frustrating. I know the past few days have been tough on you. I'm in your corner and hope you'll come back after a break. Bstone (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hasidic couple photo

It appears that the contentious photo of the Hasidic couple will soon be deleted. One of the persons in the photo has submitted a request that it be deleted, discussion seen here: [2]. Of course, the author David Miller, alias David Shankbone, swooped down and demanded that it be restored: [3]. The matter is still in process, being monitored by an Admin: [4]. An editor has put this all in prespective -- view by navigating to the text with green background here: [5].

--71.127.229.128 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am asking Commons:User:Nick, the Wikimedia Commons administrator processing the request, to confirm whether the David Shankbone photo involved in the Wikimedia Foundation request was the same as the one here, before taking further action. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other whether this photo stays or goes. But anyone who believes that this couple actually contacted wikipedia about the photo - I have a nice big bridge to sell you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is handling this one, it's their call. I wouldn't know one way or another. If you have relevant information, perhaps you could give it to them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As this issue has now been taken out of our hands, perhaps everyone could work towards improving the article? I note that this article does not have ONE citation or reference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate description of what hassidism actually is would be appreciated in the religious sectors section. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it, how when there's a chance for controversy everyone wants to pitch in, but when article improvement begins, suddenly find they have to be elsewhere? Shame on you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Photo

Which photo is more appropriate for the top of the article? Gilabrand's picture of a rabbi from behind, or this one which allows you to see the person, who happily represents the majority of Orthodox people? Sorry for the sarcasm, but we seem to have rolled from one dispute into another one, and I'm getting tired of it. I don't give a damn about this photo in particular, I just want a more representative one that a fuzzy depiction of a rabbi's ear. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilabrand has put up an much better picture than both. Though where his obsession with rabbis stems I do not know. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) —Preceding comment was added at 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emunah not the same as Faith

While it's true that Emunah is commonly translated as "belief" or "faith", the source that was cited is correct in stating that this is a mistake. It derives from the noun "emet", or "truth", and means an assertion of something being true. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your personally vouching for one source (who translates emunah as "conviction") as opposed to others (who translate it as belief or faith) represents a violation of the neutral point of view policy. As a result I had to revert the text you added to the article which claims this view is true and that other views are mistaken. As you note it is a minority view. Most translations take the other position. Wikipedia simply can't accept an editor's personally-vouched-for claim that a minority view is correct and the majority view is wrong. Similarly, Wikipedia can't present a source's own claim that other sources are wrong as fact, only as that source's view. (And including such a claim even as an opinion adds no encyclopedic value, since when a matter is disputed, it's implied that people on each side think those with views different from theirs are mistaken.) Just as a side note,"emunah" is often used in Hebrew to refer to a person. "Belief" and "faith" in a person are phrases that make complete sense in English. What exactly does "conviction" in a person mean? Is such a phrase even correct English usage? No wonder most translations don't use the term. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that text. I saw the edit, and put this comment here because I knew that someone would want to revert it. I was hoping to forestall an incorrect edit. I failed. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead picture

The picture of Rav Moshe Lichtenstein is better suited for Modern Orthodox Judaism, as he is specifically referenced as such and that article had no lead image. I placed it there, and substituted the picture of Rav Moshe who as the unarged posek hador better reflects all facets of Orthodox Jewry: Modern, Yeshivish/Haredi, Litvish (non-yeshivish), Hasidic, Sefardic, Oberland, etc. -- Avi (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree. rov moshe feinstein is for sure more representative of "orthodox jewry" than an unknown modern orthodox rabbi. 68.50.99.248 (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)jonah