Talk:British Jews#Consensus issue

I find it really strange that a Wikipedia editor has decided to remove the name of DNA pioneer, and possibly the best UK female scientist, (i.e. Rosalind Franklin) from the main pictures of prominent British Jews. I think her picture and name should have not been removed, especially when there are only 2 women pictures left (out of 12 pictures). Please could someone reverse this edit and add the late Rosalind Franklin's picture to the list of prominent British Jews.92.19.104.50 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

:I don't have a strong opinion about who are the right people that should appear in these collages. I'd completely remove them from all the articles about ethnic groups, as they are a source of endless arguments. So I don't care very much whether Ms. Franklin appears here or not.

:That said, I am reverting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Jews&diff=654065465&oldid=649704296 the unexplained edit that changed the design of the infobox], because the old view with the captions on each photograph looked much better aesthetically, and it's unclear to me why was it changed to bulk all the captions at the bottom.--Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

::I have removed the image :File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg from the article. This image is a non-free image and therefore it must satisfy all 10 of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria in order to be used in any Wikipedia article. The image does not satisfy have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c it needs to be used in this particular article and therefore it has been removed per WP:NFCCE. Moreover, even if such a rationale was provided it is unlikely this image would satisfy WP:NFCC#8 because, unlike the article Rosalind Franklin, this image is not really needed at all for the reader to understand the topic matter of the article "British Jews". The image is one of many being used in the infobox as sort of a gallery/list of similar persons; Non-free images are not allowed to be used this way per WP:NFG and WP:NFLISTS. This removal has nothing to do with Ms. Franklin or her accomplishments. There is no mention of her is the article except for the image. If there is a desire to include information about her in the article then her name should be added to the text and Wikilinked. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

{{archive top|Looking at the merits of the discussion, I would note that WP:NOTDIR focuses on "loosely associated" and it can easily be argued either way. Seeming to be "random" doesn't help because the list could be expanded to be all inclusive, thus not randomly picked, and there is no deadline. I also do not see how the guideline WP:LISTCRITERIA is an absolute bar here, although the argument isn't completely without merit. WP:WEIGHT really isn't at stake because NPOV isn't at stake. In the end, there is not a clear cut policy against inclusion, nor a clear cut reason why it must be included given. It all boils down to editorial choice. Unfortunately, even if we just consider each !vote as a vote to include or not include, irrespective of policy, there is not a clear consensus. The only guidance I can offer is to have another discussion, putting the policy concerns to the side (as they don't really apply here) and focus on what improves the article instead. A larger set in the list? Smaller set? Instead adding a paragraph or two and working the top names into the prose? I don't know, but the decision should be based on the value it adds to the article rather than perceived interpretation of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC) }}

Is the section entitled 'Communal institutions' (a partial list of communal institutions) helpful and compliant with WP:LISTCRITERIA? Amisom (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, it should be removed. There is no logic to this list. Why is the Movement for Reform Judaism (a religious denomination) included when the United Synagogue (a larger religious denomination) and Liberal Judaism (a smaller one) are not? Why is the London Jewish Forum included when Jewish Care isn't? Why is Jewish Human Rights Watch, an organisation without a Wikipedia article, included for (apparently) the sole reason of promoting its website, when larger and notable organisations such as the Jewish Council for Racial Equality are not?
  It's not sufficient to say, as {{ping|Widefox}} has, that this list could be fixed by expanding it. The problem is that it is not compliant with WP:LISTCRITERIA, in that there is no clear rule for which organisations are to be listed and which are not. What is the rule? There is none. It is a disordered mishmash of some randomly selected denominations, some randomly selected charities, some randomly selected pressure groups etc.
  See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE: think about whether or not this list is useful to readers. I don't see how it is. Amisom (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on nom RfC started before discussing on talk above per WP:RfC, after nom Amisom edit warred with two other editors (User:Philip Cross and I). Nom is not neutral and attempts a !vote (which could be struck IMHO). It is also confused: this is an embedded list: WP:LISTCRITERIA is for standalone lists, which doesn't apply to embedded lists, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists does. Widefox; talk 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• :You were so rude (including giving me a template warning, apparently just for the sin of disavreeing with you) that you clearly weren’t interested in discussion. Hence an RfC to draw in input from better people from elsewhere. Amisom (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• ::(general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive. Widefox; talk 12:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• :::Perhaps you need to re-read FORUMSHOP because holding a discussion about an article on the talk page of that article is not considered forum shopping here. Reminding yourself of AGF and BATTLE probably wouldn’t hurt either. Amisom (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all specific issues above have been addressed since nom (including inclusion criteria in hidden comment), the general point of the usefulness (and WP:WEIGHT etc) can be addressed by normal editing in the article, and is OK per WP:NAVLIST. Other similar articles have links to list articles, so can always be spun out if too lengthy, all of which can be done outside this RfC as normal. Widefox; talk 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LISTCRITERIA. To be a list, the criteria needs to be: "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources."-WP:LISTCRITERIA. The Comment is "more specific inclusion criteria useful: include only Jewish orgs based in UK that have articles (no redlinks or EXT), sorted alphabetically, these can be found in :Category:Jewish organisations based in the United Kingdom (and sub cats), and other cats"

:*Is it unambiguous? {{tick}} (Clear-cut wording. Could easially determine if something fits in the category or not.)

:*Is it objective? {{tick}} (Does not determine inclusion based on feelings or own personal POV.)

:*Is it supported by reliable sources? {{notsure}} (Inclusion criteria does not cite any sources, but does have a catergory link.)
Cocohead781 (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I think it adds little to the article and is very subjective list. The article is better without it. --G (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove I think WP:NOTDIR applies here, I don't see how this list adds anything to the article and as noted it seems a bit randomly selected. Seanbonner (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

As requested by {{u|Snowded}}

Okay to start with:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/modernorthodoxy_1.shtml

:Described United Synagogue as British Modern Orthodox in sidebar link to United Synagogue official website. Text statements: "The Jewish community within the United Kingdom has remained largely orthodox but with a modern outlook." "The United Synagogue had developed a modernist outlook by the end of the 19th Century. "

• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matchmakers-are-back-in-demand-v9rdf57gk

: "Because the United Synagogue is an Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) body with 64 individual synagogues, men and women sit ...

• http://archive.jpr.org.uk/object-uk441

:"central Orthodoxy – broadly understood as the United Synagogue, the Federation and various independent modern Orthodox synagogues"

Examples of synagogues and other community institutions equating United Synagogue with Modern Orthodox:

• http://www.goldersgreenshul.org.uk/our-community/

:"Golders Green Synagogue is a modern orthodox synagogue, member of the United Synagogue."

• http://www.theus.org.uk/sites/default/files/1%20_RUS_Community_profile__2014.doc

: "... Radlett United Synagogue is a thriving and well-established modern orthodox community..."

• http://www.shulinthewood.com/the-shul/history

: "... a prominent and flagship member of the United Synagogue. We are a modern Orthodox community ..."

• https://reshetnet.com/organisations/radlett-united-synagogue-learn2lead/

: "Radlett United Synagogue is a modern orthodox, Zionist and politics-free community"

• http://www.hjps.herts.sch.uk/about-us/the-ethos-of-hjps-a-united-synagogue-school/

:"Hertsmere Jewish Primary School (HJPS) is a Modern Orthodox (United Synagogue) Jewish primary school. "

• http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/about-us/vision-and-ethos

: "OUR VISION: JFS is a co-educational inclusive, modern, orthodox Jewish ... JFS's foundation body is the United Synagogue and its religious authority is the ..."

That little lot good enough for you? 95.148.20.9 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

::I'll check it later - a lot of material for which thanks. However on the two linked articles there is no mention of this as a uniting group. The first two references I read above are not specific which makes it look a little like original research or synthesis. But as I say that is a lot of material to wade through and some of it is behind paywalls. If any other experienced editors with specialist knowledge care to advise .... -----Snowded ^TALK 05:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

::: Well The Times quote seems pretty direct to me and I can't see any other way of interpreting the link label on the BBC page than that the United Synagogue is the British version of Modern Orthodox (or at least a version - cf the slightly more frum Federation).

:::It does strike me we're into slightly WP:SKYBLUE territory here. We're basically talking the folks who keep strict Shabbat and strict kashrut (but not glat kosher) but have TV/internet/phones and are mostly clean shaven and do not wear payot nor the whole Haredi uniform of black coat/hat and the women have no problem with wearing their own hair uncovered away from synagogue (or a nice hat for synagogue) and the men wear a kippah but otherwise wear what Christians would call "Sunday best" to synagogue and maybe a suit to work smart casual or just plain scruffy the rest of the time. The men tuck their Tzitzit out of sight under their clothes. They've got some nice looking religious books on the shelf in their lounge (printed by Artscroll and probably a bar mitzvah present), but generally they would rather spend their out of hours watching sport on TV than studying Torah. They are more likely to live in Hampstead than Stamford Hill and if there isn't a good Jewish school locally, they will happily send their kids to a non-Jewish school (with a kosher packed lunch.) They sit separately in synagogue but have no hang-up about using a gender-integrated beach or swimming pool, which is where they will spend most of their time on an Israel trip, just like most non Jewish families would do on the Costa del Sol. Basically the UK equivalent of the "knitted kippah" types in Israel. 95.148.20.9 (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Oh yes and you can verify The Times for yourself despite the paywall by feeding the quote into Google. It will quote the quote back at you as a found item. Old trick. 95.148.20.9 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

:::: @ {{u|Snowded}} - {{u|Jayrav}} has concluded "what these journalists are calling the Central Orthodox institutions should definitely be linked to Modern Orthodox" That sounds to me like a vote in favour of putting the wikilink back in. I'll give you a couple of days and if I don't hear back, I'll assume you're OK and put the wikilink back in. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::I read the discussion that you initiated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#"Central_Orthodox"_=_Modern_Orthodox?_Further_opinions_required! here] differently. It basically said that some people interpreted it that way, but it wasn't universal and some might not like the label. I don't see how you can avoid breaking WP:OR by inserting the link. So you have heard back, I am not OK. If you want to carry on with it then raise a RfC -----Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

{{archive top|The question seems simple enough, and is neutrally phrased at the top – should we link “Central Orthodox” to “Modern Orthodox Judaism”? As the status quo is unlinked, we need a consensus here to make the link.

Problem is, most of the responding editors, whatever their stance (or, frequently, lack of stance) on the link, express issues with the term “Central Orthodox”. Five editors quibble to one extent or another with the term; two support the term. From strongest quibble to strongest support:

Jayrav is skeptical of the strength of the term.

Dweller calls the term an “inappropriate neologism.”

Snowded does not support the term, noting that being mentioned in one source is insufficient.

Jheald gives a detailed analysis of the term, noting its extensive limitations though saying he’s “happy enough” with it.

FenixFeather notes some confusing terminology, citing small-c “central”, “centrist,” and “modern”.

The 82 ip supports the term, saying it’s used in [presumably the Casale] source so we’re “stuck” with it.

Jzsi supports the term due to its extensive use in the Casale source.

Therefore, I don’t see this RFC even reaching the stated question of whether to make the proposed link. Instead, I evaluate this RFC as reaching a consensus to replace the term “Central Orthodox”.

Now, it’s not perfectly clear what that replacement should be; there seems to be general agreement that some sort of “orthodox” is appropriate, likely with a link to “Modern Orthodox Judaism”. Dweller made one clear proposal, which may or may not stick as consensus. I’m going to implement his proposal of deleting “Central” from “Central Orthodox”; then I’m going to make the link.

I’d suggest that normal editing then resume, where people should feel free to be bold about adding and discussing term(s) or link(s) to replace “Central Orthodox”. However, the consensus is clear that “Central Orthodox” must be replaced.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)}}

Should "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews article be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox Judaism? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Perspective User Snowded disagreed with my Wikilinking thus. He requested sources so I supplied him with references to the [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/modernorthodoxy_1.shtml BBC website] and [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matchmakers-are-back-in-demand-v9rdf57gk The Times website] clearly labelling the United Synagogue (defined as Central Orthodox on the British Jews page) as Modern Orthodox. Snowded was unsatisfied with these sources so I bounced the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. User {{u|Jayrav}} agreed with the wikilink, user {{u|Dweller}} said that "Central Orthodox" was a neologism but gave no comment on whether or not to wikilink. User {{u|Zchai72}} commented on Central Orthodox being more commonly rendered "Centrist" in America but again gave no opinion on the wikilink. Snowded reckoned this was a split opinion, therefore, he still opposes the wikilink. What do other people think? Yes or no? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

::An RfC ie meant to be worded neutrally if you check the guidelines and this is far from that. The link given contains a discussion which indicates that the question using this label is far from clear, and it use is not really supported by the references. I'm not sure {{u|Jayrav}} agreed with the wikilink and the other two editors you mention by the nature of their comments did not support it. I didn't reckon "this was a split opinion" I said the position was no clear enough for us to use the link with Wikipedia's voice - please don't make false statements -----Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

::: OK, I've renamed the "background" comment as "perspective" as it was not meant to be part of the RfC, just an opening comment. My reading is that {{u|Jayrav}} supported the wiklink and the other two editors commented on the term Central Orthodox without giving any opinions either way on the actual Wikilink. But of course the three of them can explain their positions re Wikilink Yes Or No themselves. 2.28.124.67 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

::::Calling it perspective does not make it a properly formulated RfC I'm afraid. You are not stating the issue but arguing your perspective. This is also a trivial issue - if the term you prefer becomes mainstream then it will appear, properly referenced in the articles you are seeing to categorise - I doesn't -----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

::::: The RfC is "Should "Central Orthodox" on the British Jews article be wikilinked to Modern Orthodox Judaism?" The bit below that is just the first comment.62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Light oppose due to these tentative observations of an outsider. Casale Mashiah & Boyd 2017, pp. 11–12, which is used as the defining quotation, does not capitalize "modern Orthodox synagogues" but calls them "Central Orthodox", using the term 190 times. Since this article is the source of the quote, and quite thorough in its analysis of British Jews today, I would keep the term and duplicate the reference to Casale right after the quote marks. Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

::: Yes that's the term they use so it is quite properly used in the article. Question is whether or not to put a link in to this page (which I would argue was the intended meaning on a worldwide level.) 2.28.124.67 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am strongly in favor of the wikilink to Modern Orthodoxy. But I am skeptical of the strength of the term Central Orthodox as a defining term for British United Synagogue. It is a new term and while it is indeed used, it does not override prior terms.--Jayrav (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Agreed it is a new term, but it is the term used in the source so we're kind of stuck with it as far as the actual article goes - all one can do is explain it. 2.28.124.67 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

::::Being mentioned in one source is not sufficient to make it a united category -----Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

::::: Yes, but the reason the original author of the article used that wording was because that was what was in the original source. A Wikilink to an article named for a more standard term is a common method of explaining idiosyncratic terminology. That way, one can explain what the source meant.62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::More doubts are being expressed on this subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Judaism&type=revision&diff=849626116&oldid=849333350 here], my original concern was that the edit was designed to make a statement and that seems more evidenced as this discussion goes on -----Snowded ^TALK 05:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Invite User {{u|Jheald}} first input the term "Central Orthodox" on this page in 2008. He/she is therefore invited to contribute on whether or not to wikilink said term to Modern Orthodox Judaism 62.190.148.115 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

::Goodness, that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Jews&type=revision&diff=169966158&oldid=162639612 diff] was a long time ago! It was an edit based on [https://web.archive.org/web/20110606072051/http://www.jpr.org.uk/publications/publications.php?id=97 this report] from the year 2000, a report that might be considered the immediate predecessor to last year's paper by Mashiah and Boyd, and similarly included numbers for the balance of synagogue memberships.

::The term "central Orthodox" (with a small "c") was taken from that earlier report. I am happy enough for people to use "Central Orthodox" with a capital "C", and I can understand Mashiah and Boyd using it, writing a whole paper, simply as a less fussy choice to maintain. But we should understand the limitations of the phrase. It may be a useful ad-hoc label to broadly group together particular synagogues and organisations for the purposes of analyses like these two papers; but (to the best of my awareness) it is not a self-identification used by any of these bodies, nor a more broadly recognised movement (unlike, say, the term Modern Orthodoxy), nor any named formalised association that the bodies in question would consider themselves as in some way signed up to. It is merely a grouping of convenience, for the purpose of the analysis.

::(Qualifying note to the above -- over time I think there may have sometimes been a degree of association between the Feds and the Uniteds that has ebbed and flowed between one period and another, for example whether the Feds got any input or veto on the selection of the Uniteds' Chief Rabbi. But my understanding is that they are pretty separate ("younger movements not officially recognising the Chief Rabbi as their representative" [https://chiefrabbi.org/history-chief-rabbinate/]), and for example maintain distinct Kosher authorities and Beths Din, as of course do the Spanish & Portuguese).

::Is it fair to associate this grouping with "Modern Orthodoxy" ? Pretty much, I think. "Modern Orthodoxy" is not the term Mashiah and Boyd used, just as they preferred "Strictly Orthodox" to Charedi. Defining their own term avoids questions as to whether every last person would necessarily self-identify as "Modern Orthodox". But I think it's a useful broad link to give people, in the same way that we are linking "Strictly Orthodox", to give a reasonable approximation as to what sort of distinctions underlie this place on the congregational spectrum. Jheald (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

::I should also add that the shul I go to would not be in the "Central Orthodox" grouping, so I should perhaps defer to others closer to that stream as to how accurate or not any associations conveyed to readers by a link to "Modern Orthodoxy" would be for readers. But the observations of both User:Dweller and User:Jayrav in the WT:JUDAISM thread seem accurate and on-point to me. Jheald (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Central orthodox" for me is an inappropriate neologism and should be removed, not linked. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

::OK, so what do we put in its place? Bearing in mind that it is the term that appears in the source. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::"Orthodox". Which is how the US describes themselves. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::: How do we distinguish that from "Strictly Orthodox" (currently wikilinked to Haredi Judaism in the article)?

::::"Orthodox" by itself generally tends to be a blanket term for both the Haredim and the Mods. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::It has the virtue of accuracy and the problem you raised is overcome because we have the Haeidim covered by the word "Orthodox" prefixed by a modifier. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::: You want the Strictly/Haredi categrory relabelled as "Ultra Orthodox" then? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Sorry if I'm not being clear. We currently have "Central Orthodox" and "Strictly Orthodox". I propose not changing the latter and deleting the word "Central" from the former. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, I make the scores so far: Three in favour of the wikilink (me, Jayrav "strongly in favour", Jheald), two opposed to the wikilink: (Snowded, Jzsj "light oppose") one alternative proposal (Dweller wants Central Orthodox changed to just Orthodox) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As a lay reader, this is my understanding. It seems like "Modern Orthodox" encompasses a large variety of people that try to stick to traditional rules but also adapt to modern life at the same time. One factor that introduces additional confusion is that the United Synagogue page says it's "central Orthodox", while the Modern Orthodox page uses the term "centrist Orthodox", which is apparently somewhat synonymous with "modern Orthodox". Therefore I don't think it would be misleading to wikilink it, though it would be helpful to have a source that shows they identify with that label. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 05:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

::: Would either of these suffice, {{u|FenixFeather}}? :

::::[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/subdivisions/modernorthodoxy_1.shtml BBC website article on Modern Orthodox Judaism with hyoerlink alongside article to United Synagogue site, labelled "United Synagogue, British Modern Orthodox"]

::::[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/matchmakers-are-back-in-demand-v9rdf57gk Article from the Times containing the following quote: "Because the United Synagogue is an Orthodox (albeit known as “Modern Orthodox”) body with 64 individual synagogues, men and women sit ...] 62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

----

: The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.