Not that i am against having Jewish news, but it seems inappropriate to have jewish news in all of our Judaism articles, Christian news in our Christianity articles, etc. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Rk pronunciations Part 2 On many articles Pronunciations are extremely, imo, wacked up with "scientific" transliterations. Wikipedia is not the Scientific weekly, or a hardvard Research project. 90 of the people reading them would not have any clue as to what they were reason. For example, the josiah page transliterates my name as "yošiyyáhu" - why not keep it simple so everyone can understand it - "Yoshiyahu"?- josiah 02:36, (UTC) Well, maybe that can be a third transliteration, as I told you in private message before. But we cannot remove the scientific info; encyclopedias are supposed to educate people who don't know the material, and not simply tell certain visitors what they already know. Vernacular Israeli hebrew is as valid as Standard Hebrew in this matter.
Typewriter - desktop font « myfonts
Hebrew Calendar essay August 6, 2005 - rosh assignment Chodesh av - beginning of The nine days of mourning August 14, 2005 - tisha b'av - fast commemorating the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem Parsha massei august 6, av 5765 devarim August 13, av 5765 va'etchanan. ezra wax 02:17, (UTC) How are the items in it updated? Jayjg 02:57, (UTC) Click here: edit. There is also a link in the box itself. If you want to add an item, just copy a previous item and change. You can also edit the items in place. Each line in the table begins with and each line has to be separated by - as you will see if when you edit the table. ezra wax 03:35, (UTC) so people would just decide for themselves what "Jewish news" was worthwhile noting? Jayjg 15:16, (UTC) Ezra wax has taken it upon himself to insert this into many articles. On their own, many other wikipedia editors removed. I agree with the removal.
But regardless, everyone should have a look at the talk pages there, where even "Tanakh" and "Old Testament" are up to be merged. I made my point there already; I suggest that others go and do the same. Dovi 16:08, sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Jewish news night box What was that Jewish news box that appeared in the jews and Judaism article? How is it maintained? Who decides what goes in it? Jayjg 15:29, (UTC) I made the box, but I'm not sure where to put. For now it is on my user page. If you wish to put it on a page you can add the following to your page (you can only see it in edit mode jewish News * haaretz: Disengagement imminent!
One article on the history of Christian interpretation and study, another on the how presentation the book was and is studied in the jewish traditions. These articles need not be pov: A "Jewish" article, for instance, can and must, for instance, discuss how Christian exegesis influenced Jewish study, how Jewish study has been influenced by modern theories, etc. But there should still be to separate articles. How to give them titles would also take some thought. Do people agree with me? Dovi 20:08, jul revelation 15, 2004 (UTC) I think the idea of two articles makes a lot of sense, each one linking to the other at the bottom. Jayjg 15:04, (UTC) Among ourselves, we agreed upon the above in July. Nevertheless, we should be aware that there are wikipedians out there who are quite zealous about merging articles. Whether the term "Hebrew Bible" should be merged or not is a separate question (I think not).
It is better to just call them places or geography. Contextually in an article it will be understood to what extent they were or are "Jewish". See: izak 06:51, (UTC) The bible i would like to make a radical suggestion related to the above two points, and to the next one. Every culture and religion on wp has its its literature discussed objectively and fairly (hopefully but nevertheless merits articles presenting it as part of that culture. In the case of Judaism and Christianity, however, because the canon is partially shared, there is a great deal of conflict, implied bias, and a deep sense that a meaningful picture is hard to paint within some of the articles. This is especially true for the biblical books. I think most of us would agree that reading the bible is two different "worlds" in the jewish and Christian traditions. (I write this as someone who was and is involved in interfaith activities, including study groups. The meeting between the two worlds can be fascinating and meaningful, but they remain two different worlds.) Therefore, i suggest the following radical idea: That articles on the biblical books be parallel.
Hebrew, computing Listserv - got Unicode
Who is to blame that wikipedia contains thousands of Jewish-related articles? We have to work with what we've got. Izak 19:41, (utc topics That can use templates, jewish books (See. Category:Jewish texts rabbis (geonim, rishonim, acharonim) (See. Category:Rabbis halachos of Shabbos (See. Category:Jewish law and rituals prayers (See. Category:Jewish law and rituals holidays (See.
Category:Jewish holy days ) Time periods in Jewish History (see category:Jewish history ) Masechtot and/or Sedarim of the talmud (see category:Mishnah and Category:Talmud ) books of Tanach (Hebrew Bible) (this template is functional) (see category:Torah and Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh Jewish cities I don't understand; what. A city built by jews? A city that has mostly jews in it? A city in the State of Israel? All wikipedia articles on cities should have the same format in all cases. Rk 03:04, jul 15, 2004 (UTC) i agree with rk in this dissertation regard.
I don't know what reform Jews would say, probably something like keeping alive the memory of Torah. The two are incompatible in the same paragraph since all the subsequrnt fundamental views will differ. I think we have to have an agreed format based upon chronology where the traditional (i.e. Orthodox) perspectives are surmised followed by a comparison of all the revisionist perspectives under separate subheaddings. Something like that anyway. Zestauferov 21:02, (utc wikiproject categories, if the project branches out endlessly it will have more trouble defining its subject matter and will attract more edit warring that is warranted.
The secret of keeping this project succesful and viable is limiting its scope for the time being. T@lk, i agree with jfw here. What are everyone's thoughts on merging some of the categories together, if possible?-, josiah 02:23, (UTC) At this time the categories are both sufficiently broad enough yet are divided logically. How on Earth would one combine categories with over fifty articles with others of a similar nature? We are not dealing with morons, any person with average intelligence will be able to very quickly find whatever they need simply and efficiently with the present categories. A lot of thought, time and work has gone into the.
Mergener formula - touchcalc
Rk 13:37, jul 14, 2004 (utc my thoughts, exactly!, josiah 16:58, (UTC). There is not enough Conservadox viewpoint and a lot of stuff in the articles is pure reform pretending to be traditional Judaism. I know that comment will not increase my popularity, but I think my popularity is low enough so as not to make much difference even if I didn't post. Zestauferov 11:05, (UTC) The reason I say not enough is because at least the conservadox pov is the closest one will find to npov gps essay in the subject. We are witnessing a see-saw back and fourth between two conflicting points of view (traditional and revisionist). It is impossible to talk about one core judaism unlike christianity because it is not a religion with fundamental pillars. If we say the core is something being based around Torah then it is just too wide. The orthodox religion would say living Torah is the fundamental pillar.
I don't see the bias. We are following npov rules in all of our articles. As long as we continue to do so, we will be fine. All of our articles may be seen as being biased towards Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, due to the fact that the intellectual leaders of these movements have policies similar to npov rules. In contrast, most ultra-Orthodox Jews, (Hasidic and Non-Hasidic) are virtulently anti-historical, storeman and view all historical research as anti-semitic and heretical. But that is always a complaint made by fundamentalists about all non-religious encyclopedias. Wikipedia has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Muslims as being biased against their interpretation of Islam; wikipedia has a long history of being attacked by fundamentalist Jews as being biased against their interpretation of Judaism; and wikipedia has a long history. What they offer instead is a total violation of npov methodology. Their objections merely prove that the historical survery, npov style of writing which we currently have in our articles is the correct one to have.
at least in English. Too slow for the competitors, sadly, two decades later, Blick can no longer keep up with the swift force of the conventional machines with type bars. Remington tries to bring it back to life, but it is lights out for the. Read more type : single element, type wheel, scientific keyboard, three bank, double shift This machine dates from 1896 Its production started in 1893 Serial number : 99754 Previous next back to top. Contents, where is the bias? The main page proclaims: "The current viewpoint of articles tends towards a conservadox (Liberal Modern Orthodox) point of view. Partially this is because other points of view find it more difficult to discuss all topics. However, this point of view is quite biased against more Orthodox viewpoints and possible against more liberal viewpoints as well.".
Te traag voor de concurrenten, helaas kan de Blick twee decennia later niet meer write opboksen tegen het snelle geweld van de conventionele machines met typearmen. Remington doet nog een reanimatiepoging, maar daarna gaat het licht uit voor de Blick. Lees meer portable, strong and low-priced. In 1893 Blickensderfer launches his revolutionary machine, the Blick 5, onto the market. One central wheel with 84 characters replaces the many type bars. Not a new principle, yet sold wonderfully as a small, light machine - the first portable. Its users can choose from hundreds of exchangeable type faces - also in other languages. Or even a featherweight aluminum design. Yes, even a hebrew version that types from right to left or one for music notes.
Previous, next more pictures, in het Nederlands, draagbaar, sterk en goedkoop. In 1893 brengt Blickensderfer zijn revolutionaire machine op de markt:. Zijn gebruikers kunnen kiezen uit honderden verwisselbare lettertypen - revelation ook in andere talen. Of voor een aluminium pluimgewicht uitvoering. Ja, zelfs voor een Hebreeuwse versie die van rechts naar links schrijft, of een voor muzieknoten. Wetenschappelijk toetsenbord, de Blick krijgt een 'wetenschappelijk' toetsenbord mee, dat de vaakst voorkomende letters (dhiatensor) het dichtst bij de typist brengt. De onderste rij wordt 70 procent van de tijd gebruikt en de tweede 24 procent - wel, toch in het Engels.