1976:
regarding those reviews of the readings would be different from the existing main biblical articles. As I said above, as an example, the
Catholic Church has a schedule of readings which repeats every other year. If I had to, I could probably produce some regular publication for priests outlining the meanings of the texts and possible sermons to be based on them, because I know they exist, I've even seen them. But that would not necessarily establish that the texts of the readings as a separate subject unto itself, unless the text included somehow made linkages of the subjects sufficient to establish notability of the various separate readings which could not be included in any other of the existing articles. I have not seen any clear indication that there is evidence of notability of that sort of material. If there is, my apologies. But, having said that, having (years ago, admittedly) somewhat regularly looked through some of the Catholic homiletics publications I mentioned above, I can't see how they would necessarily be able to meet those requirements either. And, like I said, they have a bigger population base, which would probably mean they have a larger number of people to try to find such, as well as a larger group of people for them to be distributed to. All anyone has really been asking is that the evidence of the notability of the subject of this article, as well as that of the other articles, as individual entities be clearly established. With all the people so vocally calling for their being kept, it is somewhat odd in my eyes that, if the subject were so simple to establish, that simpler act has not been done.
2360:, might be notable as themselves, but probably first as that, not as "sermons about the third week's Bible readings" or whatever. That being the case, they probably wouldn't be useful for similar articles for individual week's readings in the Catholic liturgical cycle. That being the case, I don't think there is enough more or less consistent material there to establish notability of the individual weekly readings of the Catholic liturgical cycle either. So, I doubt they would meet notability. The same rules, I think, would apply here. To date, evidently, neither I or the nominator here has seen evidence on these pages that the material these articles would require to establish their specific notability has yet to be presented. That being the case, I don't think they qualify as notable or meet encyclopedic standards, and they should be removed. Transwiki-ing to Wikibooks or some other sister site would, I think, be reasonable. And I myself have no objections per se to the material being somewhere. But I don't yet have any reason to think that they
989:
there were conventional footnotes to a specific edition, with translator's name, publisher, year of publication and page number. It would also be good if footnoted observations and analysis by modern commentators were incorporated into the article. The reading list shows that there is ample discussion of the parshot as a specific topic in modern academic sources, not all of them written by observant religious Jews. This topic has been notable for many centuries, and has been discussed and analyzed by a wide range of commentators from every ideological strain within
Judaism. The article contains external links to commentaries by some 38 different Jewish organizations, which present a very wide ideological and academic spectrum. By no means does this article push a narrow POV - the primary author is clearly open to incorporating a wide range of viewpoints on the topic. As for this article being a content fork from
699:. The fact that it and the others are written in a rather clear in-universe, POV way is another strike against them. The Catholic Church has a regular cycle of Bible readings as well, but I don't see any articles relating to those specific readings, even though they are probably more notable, given the greater size of that body. While I can and do understand that there are almost certainly homiletic works among others which discuss these readings as these readings, that material would, reasonably, also be more reasonable in the articles on the main subjects. I have to agree that this article, and probably all the others in this grouping, should be deleted as POV forks and otherwise violations of policy. This is not to say that they might not be acceptable for inclusion in some other WF site, though.
616:: Keep. I am opposed to the deletion of this Wikepedia article. This is not POVFORK. Over the years, I just used it for Torah class presentation and for finding additional documentation. I find it inspirational, well-written, and usedul for those of us who are Jewish. Probably the person who wants to delete this article does not understand that this and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. I must state that I do not quite understand what is the problem. I can only say that to me this article and the other 53 articles are invaluable to me because they are not just explain my tradition but help me to formulate questions and to be challenged.
470:
say on whales, and critiquing it as having no beginning or end of plot. What the author of this entry has done is -- over many years -- put gether the annual cycle of Torah portions/readings, the
Parshas, so that a knowledgeable (or not knowledgeable) reader of Knowledge has access to the whole of the Torah as it is read, and studied, in the living religion. Sure, we give awards (or people do not get awards) for each stage in the Tour de France, but the sum total -- the Tour itself -- is much more than its parts. The same holds for this grealty iinformative series of commentaries -- which is complete, and as anyone who goes deeper (as I ahve, in tha past) will find, is updated often by its original author. -- Huck Gutman
1581:
every one of our biannual
Biblical readings is probably at least as notable as the parsha readings, considering that approximately 1 billion living people are members of that body, considerably more than the total number of practitioners of Judaism. That is one of the obvious, and I think most problematic, details here. If we keep one group's biblical readings on the undemonstrated assumption that they meet notability, and like I said, as yet there is no clear evidence of notability in the articles, can anyone give me good reasons to not have separate articles on the Catholic biblical readings, or the possibly multiple different Lutheran readings, or the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox readings, or those of any
219:. It has no references cited to support the text (though it does have external links listed inline, going to bible verses, throughout, and it does have extensive "further reading"). The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice as though uncontested history. I have read through the article, and am not sure there is any content which can be salvaged to be merged with the other articles. I don't expect this to be controversial, but it seems to me that other editors should also review the article to see if I've missed anything, so XfD seemed more appropriate than a prod. Thanks! —
2887:. Honestly I feel the AFD nominator's reasoning is misguided and the objections raised aren't actually seen in the article. Whether the subject of the article itself is notable was not questioned by the nominator, thankfully, and I don't really even see those here !voting to delete questioning notability. Hopefully those who were thinking this is a POVFORK can now see the difference between an article on Noah the biblical charater, and this article on Noach the Torah parsha. So, the other basic reasons to delete are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) and "original research" (violates WP:NOR).
1486:, per all the keep vote reasons already given. I too find the Weekly Torah portions helpful and elucidating the Jewish interpretations for the same reasons amply given above. As a side note, "POVFORK" harks back to a time some years ago when there was a lot of clamor about only having one "official" macro-article for an entire subject, to supposedly present a "take" on every pov together. That movement has largely failed since then IMO, because wikipedia today is chock full of specialized articles that could potentially be described as POVFORKS (for instance,
2088:. As you see from the links, all three of these things have articles. Without making a case for how I would separate things out, I can give a couple of quick examples of items that belong to the parsha article and definitely not to either character article. First: Why do the Masoretes break the seven readings within the parsha exactly as they do--each one (of the first six) ends with the explicit assertion that Balaam can only speak according to God's will. Second: Why, when the first 6.5/7 of the parsha consists of the story of Balak and Balaam, does
804:
separate article for exclusively Jewish views on a book held as "holy" by groups beyond
Judaism is a POV fork, and would almost certainly lead to similar POV forks for most branches of Christianity, Islam, and other faiths. As I indicated, if there were reliable sources which specifically addressed all of a section's readings holistically, as opposed to individual readings, then notabiloity would be established. I have seen nothing to indicate that such sources have been produced. Therefore, I have not seen any reason to believe notability as per
2783:
not really be presented adequately except by using its own terms, and its own sources. WP is written for general readers, not for specialists in the tradition; I am, FWIW, not one of those specialists, but I, like others , want to understand it to some extent, both in general, and, from time to time, for specific information. WP is intended for purposes like this. This article carries out the purpose, and does it in an appropriate manner and with appropriate references. I support the renaming proposal above, which will help users find them.
1418:, please, per Caswellm, Dauster, Bachrach44, Alansohn, Cullen328 and Arxiloxos’ explanations. As a Christian, I find the articles on the Weekly Torah Portions very helpful in understanding and appreciating Judaism, Jewish religious practices, and interpretations of scripture. I particularly enjoy the images assembled in each article--they help to bring the biblical text alive for me--as well as many useful links to further reading and commentaries that I go to for addition study. Please KEEP these articles.
2690:"just because" they are all "repetitious" and "overlap" and steal from each other in theme, content, outcomes, etc etc etc, namely: "good guys eventually win against the bad guys after a few shoot-outs, they kiss and get the prettiest girl/s, and live happily ever after on ranches or keep the winnings, and oh yeah, there are a lot of horses and chase scenes on wagons while Native Americans and African American slaves are depicted as 'savages'" -- no one suggests that tens of thousands of articles in
3000:. The delete arguments seem to be arguing for cleanup rather than deletion - certainly material that is most relevant to the character or the story, rather than to the parasha, can be moved to those articles, but there exists reliably sourced rabbinical commentary on the parasha which probably belongs here rather than in more general articles that also include traditions from other religions. As well, this is part of an article scheme which includes articles on parashot that
2472:. As such, the content it contains is expected to be, basically, encyclopedic. And I also find the insistence that they are going to be "deleted" to indicate that at least one editor hasn't actually read many of the comments. It is, basiically, being suggested to be moved to another venue, whose rules it seems to more closely adhere to. It is hard not to get the impression form some of the editors that they have the impression that having an article in wikipedia,
2342:, for instance, and we are supposed to try to avoid duplication of content wherever possible. It does seem that there is a distinct overlap between the existing and potential articles on these Biblical articles and the Parsha articles. In those instances, the articles more clearly and directly on the Bible per se would, clearly, take priority. Therefore, these articles need to establish notability and avoid problems of duplication of content and establish their
2448:. Our goal is not to write articles for the sake of having in-universe style essays which may be useful to a subset of our readership for religious reasons. As far as I can tell, the reasons to keep this article so far have fallen, almost exclusively, into those categories, but that contravenes our policies. It doesn't mean this article isn't useful, or can't find a home somewhere else to serve this purpose. It just means it's not suited for here. —
2010:
extra weight. I appreciate that you and many others here do not think that sources have been provided to prove notability, but if this is because the sources cited are not familiar or accessible to you (plural), then I think you need to be especially cautious when you state that affirming sources have not been provided. And if I say something like "One million
Orthodox and other traditional Jews would unquestionably consider the
1513:. The traditional commentaries not only cover the textual contents of the Portions, but also, their order, placement, thematic unity, and so forth. They have individual identity beyond consisting of a certain number of pages or chapters in Biblical books. In fact, in Jewish tradition, they are actually considered a more appropriate division of the Torah's text than the customary chapters, which are later and of Christian origin.
2351:
Gospel. Clearly, any material about any one of those individual readings, as an individual subject, would belong first and primarily in articles relating to those sections of the Bible. Additional material on them in
Catholic context would be a POV fork. The only way I could see the weekly readings being independently notable in and of themselves would be if we could demonstrate that there is sufficient material dealing with them
1944:, a mainstream commentator on Jewish topics. This book devotes five pages (11-15) to analysis of Noach, and a similar amount to the other parashot. There must be thousands of other examples published over many hundreds of years. These parashot are notable as individual subjects of intensive and focused study and published commentary of the most rigorous academic standards. That makes them notable enough for Knowledge articles.
1590:
can be cleaned up there before being moved back into main article space. I can see some possibility that there might be one or more salvagable articles out of all this, but, honestly, even that is an assumption that work which has apparently not yet been done, over several years of the articles' existence, will be done in the future. I can't see any really logical reason to make that assumption.
1654:, and the like–are considered absolutely authoritative and reliable. They are centuries and millenia old, and are still studied regularly in the Jewish community. Whatever one's view is of the authorship of Jewish Scripture, the Talmud and Midrash were not written by the same author as the Torah; indeed, they are the subjects of Knowledge articles themselves, and are notable in their own right.
951:, but instead about the weekly Torah reading, which in this case happens to cover the story of Noah. I understand the difference. However, if we end up with an article covering that weekly Torah reading, then we need content in the article which discusses the reading itself, not the content of the reading. The article should defer questions of content to the appropriate main articles, such as
1983:, or possibly userspace. In either location, they would still be accessible, revisable, and improvable. I honestly cannot see any clear reason why they must remain in wikipedia space if, yes, after six years of existence, their notability still has not been clearly established. That lack of establishing notability may well be seen as particularly significant under the circumstances here.
1658:
if you are going to tell me that unquestionably important classical Jewish sources do not serve as independent, verifiable references on Jewish subjects, then I have to assume that you are either trying to eliminate Jewish content in
Knowledge or that you are incredibly ignorant of how Judaism works. All the evidence on Knowledge suggests the opposite, so what gives? Really?
646:: Keep. This article and those on the other Torah portions represent the best of modern thinking applied to historic scholarship, encouraging us to question, reexamine and study further. I have used them for Torah study here in the middle of nowhere because they do not push a particular agenda. I think this is a work of exceptional scholarship, well within the Wiki scope.
52:. Heck of a long read, and with SPAs involved a little bit difficult to draw a completely unbiased consensus. However, the keep !voters have made a solid point that these parshas are an intrinsic part in Jewish tradition, one which, as a simple matter of fact of what they are, will involve retelling liturgical background, such as the story of Noah here. This article
2229:
993:, that is a weak argument, as the parsha also covers the Tower of Babel and the ancestors of Abraham. It is by no means only about Noah. I see no evidence whatsoever that the article presents the content of the parsha as "uncontested history" and such a comment shows a lack of understanding about how the wide range of Jews approach Torah study today.
2947:. (Although it's not a WP:GOOD article, it certainly gets a lot of editorial attention.) I think it's reasonable to expect our readers to understand the context in which these kinds of articles are written once they are reading the body of the articles, and if the context isn't explained adequately, improve it, but again, not a reason to delete.
2211:
768:": Not correct! Because this is the very material that is used in the tens of thousands of commentaries in Judaism over two millennia that are still used by Jewish and rabbinic scholars and laymen alike to study and practice these parshas on a weekly basis, and WP is providing just a drop in the bucket of what's out there. "
2397:
dislike these articles have made their argument, but to me the result they propose is merely the reduction of information available in
Knowledge. Deletion of dozens of articles that have been read and edited for 7 years merely because they do not fit the conception of three or four editors strikes me as some hubris. --
2938:"Sacred Ganges: The Ganges river flows from the matted hair of Shiva. The epithet Gaṅgādhara ("bearer of the river Gaṅgā") refers to this feature. The Gaṅgā (Ganges), one of the major rivers of the country, is said to have made her abode in Shiva's hair. The flow of the Ganges also represents the nectar of immortality."
2135:(which we are transliterating here as "parsha") is a notable topic. The question is whether the individual parashot are notable enough for individual articles. Even the most superficial review of the literature shows that they are individually notable. Here are some reliable sources that demonstrate that:
2482:
weight in this article, to the apparent exclusion of almost everything else, also makes it rather clearly violate POV fork. I am sorry that some individuals cannot see that policies and guidelines pretty much have to take priority over all else. Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of
2355:
not individually, to meet notability requirements and provide sufficient material for a separate article. There is, like I said, a lot of material on these weekly readings, actually a rather staggeringly huge amount, both in the homiletics journals and in the various published sermons and other works
1935:
is so extensive and varied that any questions about notability ought to be moot - the challenge is to identify and select among the vast array of sources readily available to include those of the highest academic quality and that reflect the full range of significant points of view about the topic. I
1674:
Finally, concerning your last response to
Dauster: People spend their lives learning from the Talmud and the Midrash. You would have a hard time reviewing these sources well enough to determine if they meet your criteria, even if you read Hebrew and Aramaic. You're not the expert; we are, at least
1535:
I would more describe them as a change in the level of focus and detail–a 10,000-ft. view, if you will, rather than a 30,000-ft. view. And while it is probably inevitable that an article on a Weekly Portion would tend to a Jewish-oriented POV, I think there are plenty of places in plenty of articles
2927:
without attribution. The article also offers many contrasting interpretations from authoritative sources. I have trouble finding any biblical interpretation here given "in-universe" in Knowledge's voice. The one thing that could be improved is perhaps providing the context for the interpretation,
2346:
notability through reliable sources which address at some length the parsha readings as a subject independent of their specific content, which would be covered elsewhere. That might be possible, but, seemingly, it hasn't yet apparently been done. And, yes, that additional material might well qualify
2049:
I'm not sure Jess and others aren't right that strictly from a policy perspective, putting these articles into five articles called "Weekly Torah Portions in the Book of ____________" isn't the best approach. I simply think that as a practical matter, it is easier to access the information in these
2034:
Concerning the issue of POVFORK, and other arguments as to the best way to handle the material if it stays in Knowledge: As I said above, I personally think it's a matter of focus, not forking. But to those who would consider it POVFORK and bring the subjects back into the five articles on the five
2023:
In support of Cullen328: I just went to Amazon and entered "Weekly Torah Portion" in the search bar. It delivered 1,121 results. I paged through the first three pages containing 48 results; if I counted right 35 were in fact independent publications, rather than editions of the same works. And at
1686:
POVFORK. I happen to agree with you and others here that there is probably duplication that could be removed, and I would strongly encourage that. But if you are going to question the notability of the subjects and the objectiveness and verifiability of the sources, I am telling you right now that
1657:
John, based on the good work you do in Knowledge and in the Christianity projects in particular, I am trying very, very hard to assume good faith on your part. But I am having some trouble doing that. If you are going to tell me that something cannot be notable if only Jews consider it notable, or
1589:
of such articles being created if there is a single precedent, like this one. Regarding keeping the articles for a year for them to be cleared up, I think a better solution, which is both more in line with policy and guidelines and precedent, would be to move the articles into userspace so that they
988:
The topic, namely the parsha itself as a clearly defined segment of the Torah, is clearly notable. The main problem with the article is that it needs better referencing. Rather than links to hosted online translations of the Talmud and other classical commentaries on this parsha, it would be best if
2840:
Judaism warrants being represented for what it is. Judaism is not the underlying religious text. Judaism is the commentary on the underlying religious text. The commentary translates interprets and applies religious text into what can be called a cultural component if we regard that term culturally
2350:
And, referring back to the Catholic analog I mentioned earlier, I think it would be useful to use that as an example. There are three readings during a Sunday service, one from the Hebrew Bible, a recitation of a Pslam portion, another reading from the New Testament epistles, and one reading from a
2333:
Full agreement. I hope the closing administrator takes that into account. There are separate points here. The first is the notability of the Biblical texts which are selected as parsha. No one is necessarily questioning the notability of Biblical stories in any way, shape or form. The second is the
2292:
of the work, that is, Noah's ark, which is not relevant to this issue. If you could, please provide relevant quotes from those sources above which indicate that Noah's ark, from a Jewish perspective, is distinctly notable from Noah's ark generally. If we do end up keeping these articles, understand
1975:
perhaps be moot to establish notability. The question is whether we would be establishing notability of the torah readings as a specific subject, and I haven't seen any clear evidence that anyone is challenging that, or of the individual "parsha" (or whatever the plural is), or whether any evidence
1604:
Contrary to the above assertion, there are references inline in the text. They are to the Babylonian Talmud, Genesis Rabbah, and other sources that report what the classical Rabbis said about the Torah reading. These are the most authoritative sources available for the classical interpretation of
1288:
Second, do these articles, basically, constitute POV forks? So far as I can tell, the answer to that will almost certainly be, now and into the future, yes. It is hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine that someone investigating "claims of the paranormal", or an archaeologist, or whatever, will
925:
in no way is evidence that the material in question meets wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are, in fact, other places that this material could be included, as I said earlier. But wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not necessarily a location which exists to allow men to meet their religious
582:
By just looking at a few of them (there are a lot of them) they appear to be fairly small and obviously not a verse-by-verse critique as these appear to be. I would have less of an issue for a page for each if it was limited to overviews and universal unbiased opinion and WELL sourced, but as it is
341:
I'm a bit concerned about an IP whose only edit is to praise what the IP refers to as Dauster's article. Particularly since the IP doesn't seem to understand that we cannot have two articles on the same subject with different content. The fact that an article has existed from 2005 is immaterial. If
2782:
Though we do not fork, some extremely important and complex subjects need to be covered in multiple articles, some sometimes with a different emphasis. The traditional Jewish way of reading and interpreting the Bible is a distinct intellectual system (as is the traditional Islamic system.) It can
2396:
I must admit that I find some of the hostility to content in this discussion astounding. What is so wrong with having additional information on this topic available in the encyclopedia, even if one cannot recognize an analog in one's own cultural tradition? Plainly, the three or four editors who
1902:
issues and an ongoing SPI investigation, secondly the whole issue of POVFORK hasn't really been fully addressed, and obviously we don't go by votes alone, only consensus and validity of the arguments, so even though it looks like a lot of keeps, the reality is it's not a cut-and-dry snow case by a
587:
what wikipedia is about. Even if the decision is to keep this article, it will still likely need to be severely gutted and whittled down to an encyclopedic article. There's another issue is that this is essentially just the books of the bible with Jewish slant to their interpretation, why couldn't
541:
what wikipedia is about, these 52 articles (And I likely more articles Dauster has created, are not encyclopedia entries for this. I'm not saying the Jewish liturgical year isn't worthy of inclusion, but we don't need entire textual crituqes of every verse of the entire Torah here, and that's what
469:
I find the series of Parshas an invaluable help to me when I try to understand the Jewish liturgical year ( it, the weekly readings of the Torah.) Separating one entry from all its affiliated entries, and then criquing its 'thoreoughness', seems to me equivalen to taking one chapter of Moby-Dick,
322:
This and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. There are numerous sources cited to classical Jewish historical documents like the Talmud, Mishnah, and Midrash. There is substantial content and focus here that are not
959:. I am not opposed to having an article on the weekly Torah readings, but as Raeky notes above, one article to cover them all is probably enough. I also second John Carter's suggestion that these articles may fit nicely on another wiki, and I'd encourage that. They just aren't really suitable for
799:
are notable. They may well be just a fraction of the Jewish comments on the Bible. I am sure they are. That does not make them anything other than Jewish comments on the Bible. There is an even larger, regular, body of work on various Christians interpretations of the bible, consistent with their
2481:
as well. So far as I can tell, each of the "Rabbinic interpretations" included is, in fact, specifically applicable to a specific limited text. As such, they very clearly could be included in the existing articles which deal with those texts more directly. The fact that they are given such heavy
2009:
I am not at all seeking to substitute policies on notability by pontifications of self-appointed experts, especially me. But sometimes people who know a subject also know when the subject is patently notable or not, and perhaps that expertise is due some extra weight—not outright deference, but
1580:
means nothing if they cannot find reliable sources on them, and, apparently, at least on this article, none have yet been found. Certainly, there are no clear "references" that I can see, but rather just a list of further readings. I am a Catholic, and I could say on the same basis that each and
803:
This material seems devoted to discussing Biblical material which is already discussed elsewhere in wikipedia, in articles on those selections of the Bible. If that is the case, then the material on those Biblical readings belongs in those articles on the Biblical readings themselves. Creating a
297:
all of those are problems, not just this one, possibly amend the AFD to include them all? Not sure they need deleted though, but DEFINITELY gutted and properly sourced and brought to look more like encyclopedia articles. We don't need a verse-by-verse interpretation and explanation of the entire
2439:
venue, with different policies, and a different mission. However, wikipedia's goal is not to provide a study guide for Judaism. Our goal is not to provide multiple articles written about the same topic from simply different points of view. Our goal is not to cover topics which aren't covered by
2287:
Just to be clear, regarding what was said above, there is a difference between a work and the content in the work. We aren't concerned with determining that the story of Noah's ark has received discussion and is notable. We are concerned with determining that the existence of Noah's ark in this
2055:
To John Carter concerning the analogy to Catholic readings: I appreciate the analogy based on your experience, but I don't think the analogy really holds. Best to discuss why privately so that I don't take more airtime here, but I would consider the weekly prophetic readings (Haftarot) to be a
1730:
Steven, first of all, you're overly personalizing this dispute. Please don't do that. I guarantee you that all the editors discussing the deletion of this article are operating in good faith. As far as this sub-discussion is concerned, you are missing a fundamental point. There is a difference
1661:
John, there are approximately six million Jews in the United States, and many more Anglophone Jews elsewhere. Roughly speaking–I'm not looking it up–somewhere between 10% and 25% of those Jews would consider themselves Orthodox of one flavor or another, and many more would consider themselves
1631:
in a way which could not be added to any other extant articles, then I still think that the issues of POVFORK and others that have been mentioned apply. To date, admitting I have not reviewed them myself, I do not see that they have been established to do so. But, if they do not, my apologies.
1273:
which in this context would mean is the reading itself sufficiently notable as an entity unto itself to have separate articles. Well, without any sources, it is hard not to think that the answer is "No." This is not saying that the material could not be included in other existing articles, for
1547:
2. Over a bit of a longer stretch of time--and that might be a year, if, for example, one of these happens per week--let's let Dauster and others work to pull things apart a bit. I think it is reasonable to reduce duplication where it exists; not everything about Noah the person must also be
2849:
is not considered merely someone who had an opinion to express. The opinions of some commentators are understood to be especially relevant. Any reader whether Jewish or not coming to an encyclopedia should be afforded the opportunity of seeing Judaism comment on the underlying religious text
1829:
without clearly demonstrated evidence that the subjects are notable because editors say they are. I am very much trying to assume good faith on the part of those editors, but, if the topics were so notable in their own right, I have trouble seeing how there could be so much need to engage in
1819:
and that the material they provide could not fit into any other existing page, then they could be kept. Steven, I'll be honest with you. Knowledge policies and guidelines basically rule here, not the opinions of self-appointed experts. All that is being asked of any of you is to demonstrate
1551:
3. I would make the focus of the revised articles on Readings themselves more their general flow: their content (briefly), the reason they start and stop where they do, the juxtaposition of their characters, and so forth. It doesn't eliminate duplication, but it reduces it. (Example, for
323:
present in the other articles cited by the nominator, as those articles do not address the subject's significance to the annual cycle of Torah readings. Destruction of this article, which has existed separately and with acceptance since 2005, would eliminate useful and separate content. --
243:: There appear to be a lot of these kinds of articles. A lot of work was obviously put into these, but they seem to be poorly sourced, duplicate content, and in violation of our neutrality policies in terms of their style; in other words, they all appear to be POVFORKS. Here are a few.
1311:
Noach seems to be getting a lot of attention as a POV fork because of all the other articles related to the story listed above. Is this argument limited to Noach or do you believe that all the articles in the same cat are inherently POV forks? If the latter, can you tell me what, say,
1203:
per Dauster, Bachrach44, Alansohn & Cullen328's explanations. The parashot are the subject of massive study and commentary, ancient, modern, and continuing, in this structure. Scrambling it up would inevitably lose valuable content and would be of no help to interested readers.
2150:
1937:
2711:
as someone that hears every week of the year a discussion of the weekly Parasha, I cannot even start to understand the idea of deleting this or other parashot. For thousands of years they are discussed over and over again, and they are an important part of the Jewish tradition.
1824:
than to engage in such lengthy commentary and repetition of other editors' names? As I and others have already stated, there is probably basis for including this material "as is" on one of the other WF sites, which could be linked to here. I cannot see why we are being asked to
2061:
To Dauster and everyone else concerning a different Wiki project: As far as I could see, that alternative only came up fairly late in the discussion. It might be a good approach. I think Dauster's articles are great, and need to stay somewhere. I also think that the
790:
Izak, regretably, I have to very seriously wonder regarding your grasp of basic wikipedia policies and guidelines. The bulk of your comments seems to be, basically, "it's important." If it is so important, then there should easily be found independent reliable sources,
2854:. It is a partial but nevertheless important expression of what Judaism is. Judaism is of course not about belief. In fact it would be more correct to characterize Judaism as a questioning of belief. Commentators can and do disagree with one another in readings of the
1033:, though each has its place in Knowledge and none are POVFORKs of any other, they simply cover different material. There are dozens of sources provided, and the work needed here should be devoted to tagging the sources as references, rather than deleting the article.
1297:, which do not have the same policies and guidelines, and I am all but certain that this material might well be acceptable in one or more of them. But I cannot see how these articles, particularly without specific references, meet policy and guideline requirements.
2894:
Certainly, WP:V is being followed, as the nom points out that the article does have many in-line references. Although the complaint was brought that this article's reference style doesn't match Knowledge's preferred in-line footnote style, that's not a reason to
2163:
2157:
1926:
Much has been made of the lack of specific references within this article to establish the notability of the topic of the parsha itself. Though this is a valid criticism, it is not a reason to delete the article, but instead an argument for improving the article.
1666:–and I don't concede only the minimum, but I'm arguing it for argument's sake–one million English-speaking Jews exist who would tell you that in no uncertain terms, the Weekly Torah Portions are notable. They are the basis of our study every week of every year.
1050:
Raeky's comment on Dauster's job, revealed on Dauster's user page is both inaccurate and irrelevant. Dauster states he now works as a staffer in the U.S. Senate, and is a former White House staffer, but this should have no bearing at all on this deletion debate.
2039:
go, then the Jewish POV in those articles becomes excessively weighty. And, additionally, the focus level of the articles becomes mixed, because it includes information at the whole-book level and at the sub-book level. It is probably better for everyone if
292:
I'm going to have to agree here, they're all clearly unsourced POV articles that do not present alternative views, do not have sources to backup their anaysis/meaning sections, and read pretty much like religious study guides and not an encyclopedic article,
2181:
2169:
1134:
it may be relevant, a SPI has already been opened apparently on this issue. I can care less what he does for a living, but I do care about a QUICK influx of new editors flooding in indicating canvassing of some kind took place, at least to me it seems.
2914:"Interpreting the words, 'And the earth was corrupt (תִּשָּׁחֵת, tishachet) before God,' in Genesis 6:11, a Baraita of the School of Rabbi Ishmael taught that whenever Scripture uses the word 'corruption,' it refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."
2356:
of priests through the ages. But most of the homiletics journals deal with broad ideas for sermons, not specific material which specifically deals with the specific readings directly in the context of each other. And the specific sermons of, say,
1670:
frankly, do not have the right to tell them/us that they/we are wrong. And while I do not quite know how many people have to think something is notable enough to make it notable for Knowledge purposes, the number does not have to be as high as a
536:
third IP editor that has never edited before showing up here to defend the creator of these pages.... interesting. Huck, this is an encyclopedia, not a religious study website, we don't need unabridged textual critiques of literature here, that's
271:
in 2006 (I've already notified him of this discussion). I'm not really sure what to do here. I don't want to XfD all 43+ of them. I suppose we may have to go through one by one after this discussion closes, and see what to do in each case. —
1526:-oriented source material in the Hebrew version. (And I appreciate that other Wiki-projects are not directly relevant, but I will tell you that as a model Hebrew Knowledge handles them successfully in parallel, and with minimal duplication.)
812:
has been established. I would also ask the closing administrator to take into account the various comments which are unrelated to evidenced matters of policy and guidelines, and take that lack of addressing the central issues into account.
1228:
be deleted, nor are we proposing that notable views about the parsha be excluded from WP. I think we're saying that we don't need a line-by-line description of Noah's ark here (particularly with unsourced commentary) when we already have
1289:
refer explicitly to a specific ceremonial Jewish text from the Bible rather than the Biblical text in the broader sense. In that sense, these articles would seem to be inherent POV forks. Having said all that, as has already been said,
1556:
full coverage of Abraham's, or Lot's, or Sarah's personality wouldn't be appropriate. Enough coverage so that the reader would then understand why Abraham's and Lot's going their separate ways is significant within the reading would
1508:
I guess I don't entirely understand why some of the editors writing here wish so strongly to find grounds to delete articles on the Weekly Torah Portions. To someone Jewish, the individual Weekly Torah Portions are certainly notable
1285:, for instance, are not the same as reliable sources for a reading about Noah. And, yes, the lack of clearly established notability of these readings as themselves is sufficient grounds for the deletion of the articles from wikipedia.
926:
obligations. The above comment, in fact, while clearly making assumptions, does not in fact offer any evidence that the material meets the basic policies and guidelines, which I suggest others might read before further commenting.
2153:
Though I haven't studied this book, it is clear that it reflects a perspective very different from Orthodox Judiasm, which rejects the notion of women becoming rabbis. Every strand of Judiasm studies the individual parashot in
2140:
2075:
Final comment, and then I'm going to retreat to the sidelines on this topic: I think perhaps many people still don't appreciate the difference between article on subject and article on parsha. Let me use last week's reading,
764:": You are making very poor comparisons and you should stop it. This is not about comparative religion, this is about a central feature in Jewish synagogue worship and ritual as well as Jewish religious education year-round. "
508:, as close as you can get to DC and not be DC (cell phones?). Possibly a bit of local canvasing, seems extremely odd 3 brand new IP editors show up to defend this editor and his pages and all are so connected geographically
2476:
is somehow the goal here. While that is, obviously, flattering to the project, it also could be seen as displaying a bit of contempt for the other projects. So far as I can see, the article as it exists may also violate
691:- While I have sympathy with those who have created and developed the article, I do not see any clear evidence of notability of the subject independent of the original texts. Thus, I cannot see how these articles meet
168:
1125:
I only brought it up because I saw the possibility of a link, maybe more with all these new SPA and IP's showing up here, it's obviously not relevant content wise to the discussion but for other issues like
2974:
This is not a democracy and vote-counting doesn't matter, but it does appear to be 26 Keeps to 3 Deletes if I count the suspicious SPA/IPs, and still nearly as lopsided if those !votes aren't considered.
1016:
This (and the other 53 corresponding articles) provide thorough overviews of the corresponding weekly Torah portion. Given the material covered here there is hardly any surprise that there is overlap with
2184:
Although this book is not structured solely around discussion of the individual parashot, the author considers such commentary important enough to devote about one third of the text to commentary on each
1274:
instance, on the Biblical stories or texts themselves. In fact, in many cases, there already seems to be content relating to each of these readings in another article. The only way I could see that the
1164:. It would just look bizarre and haphazard to delete some and leave others. If we need to change the listing to include the whole cat and refocus the conversation appropriately, then we should do so. --
2217:
1820:
notability as per wikipedia policy. Would it not be more useful, and productive, to provide the sources required by policy, or point out specifically how those sources provide refer to these readings
364:. The articles discuss Jewish exegetical readings of the weekly Torah portions as subjects unto themselves, and are not attempts to evade WP:POV. There is superficial overlap between this article and
2266:
588:
these views be put into the articles about each book? That's where the main issue of the POVFORK is I think, we already have articles about these books... these views should probably go into them? —
766:
there are almost certainly homiletic works among others which discuss these readings as these readings, that material would, reasonably, also be more reasonable in the articles on the main subjects
2004:
To address John Carter with respect to notability: Cullen328 made my argument far better than I did. I'll rest that part of my case. Still, there are a couple of points worth closing the loop on:
2943:
with reference to interpretation from religious scholars. This is similar to what is in this article, although (again) it's the citation style that's different. For another comparison, look at
2431:
are the notable pages at play. If these articles do, indeed, violate principles found in those pages, which I maintain that they do, then there is a very good reason why they should be deleted.
2911:
Looking at the article, I do not find this to be the case. Over and over again, the article attributes interpretation explicitly to many authoritative sources. For example, the article says,
2254:
2092:
parsha include the beginning of the story of Phinehas and Ba'al Pe'or? Why not start that story the following week? Those are subjects for the parsha articles, not for the subject articles.
2382:
has during the time of this discussion deleted the part of the article that summarizes the Noah story, and all that is left is the treatment of the Torah portion in the Jewish tradition. --
1518:
Hebrew Knowledge contains, for example, separate articles on Noah (the person/character/prophet/what have you--I'm not trying to pick fights here) and the Weekly Torah Portion of Noah (or
2694:
be "deleted" because they all over-lap, are silly and repetitious, they ARE ALL POV-forks one way or another and could just as easily be summed up in one or two main articles! Thank you,
2175:
2172:
The second sentence of this book is, "The volume of material commenting on and analyzing the 54 slices of the Five Books of Moses is immense, and, happily, continues to proliferate."
2552:
on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way."
2488:
on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way.
1682:
John, I'll be honest with you: I personally think the Parsha articles can absolutely stay in Knowledge, absolutely as they are now, under any criteria you want to name, including
1522:). Both of the articles in Hebrew, as it happens, are far shorter than their English Knowledge counterparts, owing in substantial part to the inclusion of much less in the way of
1249:
article, or an article about the Parsha? The answer should not be both, particularly so when the latter is providing in-universe commentary on the subject without any sources. —
400:. The weekly reading contains the story of Noah, but the article is about the weekly reading, not the story of the man and his boat. Take a look at other articles on parshahs like
1281:
could be met is if reliable sources were produced which clearly and explicitly demonstrated that the readings per se met notability requirements. Reliable sources on the story of
2223:
2035:
individual books of the Torah: You might not prefer that. NPOV allows an article to include a digest of multiple POVs (PsOV?). But if these articles are where summaries of the
1936:
do not have the expertise to identify those sources, but I am absolutely certain that they exist in abundance and winnowing them is the task at hand. I offer just one example -
2562:
Wouldn't different standards of notability apply? The "Weekly Torah portion" is much older. The commentaries on the weekly Torah portion are in instances many centuries old.
2260:
800:
weekly readings. However, having seen a lot of it, so far as I can remember, all of that specifically describes individual bible readings which are already covered elsewhere.
2737:
of the Torah. It is the unit most familiar to observant and traditional Jews worldwide, as opposed to having articles on each chapter. I do feel that the content is largely
1743:. My collage would not have notability just because the bible verses I used to make it were discussed in reliable sources. The fact that collages are notable would not make
162:
568:), why should this be any different? Each one on it's own has been subject to significant independent coverage and treatment over the years, they are certainly notable. --
2841:
broadly enough. It is recommended in Judaism to not just read the underlying religious text but to read the commentary on that text too. This is expressed in the idea of
721:": indeed, as you can tell great effort and detail has gone in presenting this and the related 53 parsha articles with great care and precision and connection to their
760:": This is the most absurd "analogy" because the weekly Torah readings and their lessons are the central and focal point of all Shabbat services for over 2000 years. "
444:
is divided into 54 chapters. Each chapter has a name (although they could have simply been numbered 1-54, but where the fun in that?) This is about the chapter of the
1079:
The number of ips and new users with no other edits is concerning. I don't know what's going on, but it's no wonder someone is thinking about possible explanations.
123:
2765:
Not a POV fork but an article on one of the set sections into which the weekly Torah reading cycle has been broken, and notable in its own right (see JFW above).
2160:
This translation of the life works of a 19th century Polish Hasidic mystic is organized mainly into individual sections discussing each of the parashot in detail.
666:
2650:
for the simple reason that the nominator seems blissfully ignorant of the main reason for this and the other 53 "parsha" articles, namely, the key ritual of the
1971:- First, I want to thank Cullen328 for making an attempt to establish notability, which if it were established would end the discussion immediately. I agree it
510:, Geolocate puts these IP's different locations, ones pretty close to DC though, still strange that this much anonymous support jumping in here so quickly... —
1368:
These same articles exist in the German, Hebrew, and French Wikipedias. I know this isn't a hard and fast criteria for anything, but it's just an indicator. --
2018:
but if the statement is in fact true, then the topic is notable, because what one million people think is notable is certainly notable enough for Knowledge.
854:. This article is basically a running explanation of the contents of the chapter, using verse-by-verse references, in much the same way that the stories of
2309:, and so forth). The content you've cited so far can fit into those articles very comfortably. To keep these articles, we need sources to indicate that
2188:
This is just a very small sampling of the vast number of reliable sources that discuss each individual parsha as a topic worthy of significant coverage.
2806:
and is known today is far more worthy of encyclopedic coverage than are fly-by-night musicians and pay-per-view sporting events that are kept at AFD.
2143:
This 1350 page book is on my personal bookshelf and is almost entirely structured around the parashot, with a chapter devoted to each. The section on
560:
I find all these mysterious first time editors annoying too, but don't let the "supporters" distract you from the cause. There is a page for each
542:
this is pretty much. I'm not convinced we need a page for every one of these, one page for them all is probably all that an encyclopedia needs. —
1759:
is notable and requires its own article. Do you see the difference? The story of Noah's ark is notable, but the fact that Noah's ark appears in
128:
2147:
goes from pages 35 to 59, and includes essays by four women scholars on this specific parsha. This book had 13 scholars on its editorial board.
1830:
commentary here rather than producing evidence which would clearly establish notability and by so doing end the discussion here on that basis.
1767:
is notable before we can have an article covering a detailed analysis of each line... much less 53 separate articles doing the same thing. —
2178:
Since I mentioned two books written from a women's perspective, here's one (of many) written by men. This book is honest enough to admit it.
375:
776:": Nope, they belong right here on WP because they are 100% and thoroughly encyclopedic and are used worldwide as an important reference.
2166:
This book published by New York University Press contains lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender commentaries on the individual parashot.
1544:
1. These articles are immediately renamed from * (parsha) to * (Weekly Torah Reading), because some people don't know what a "Parsha" is.
795:
I do not beleive that we are required to assume that people who have yet to demonstrate the notability of the subject of parsha readings
737:
synagogue service in all of Judaism's denominations, as well as connected to the daily synagogue services on every Monday and Thursday. "
477:
2898:
WP:NOR is being followed, as no original analysis is being offered in the article; again, everything is attributed to a reliable source
2845:. The commentary provided is not just any commentary. There is recommended commentary by people considered more important than others.
2119:
2029:
To address Jess: Thank you for your calm tone. I do understand the differences you are suggesting. Read on for some specific points.
1862:
650:
96:
91:
2000:
I'd like to apologize to all, and particularly to John Carter for getting personal above. I let my frustrations get the best of me.
1807:
Steven, I notice that, in all your repetition of my name above, I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that these pages meet
100:
748:": they are none of these because they are also the focus of Jewish education and synagogue life for generations. Kindly note that
2654:
without which this article and the 53 ones like it is not understandable. It would wreck the entire structure of the encyclopedic
1160:
Even is the decision goes against me, I will concede now that this has to be an all or none proposition regarding all articles in
2863:
1861:, with a recommendation to do some cleanup. Because in any case that is going to be the outcome of this discussion, and see also
183:
1337:, these are readings of the Torah, and we have pages for every book of it, so it's a POVFORK as well for each of those pages. —
3013:
2862:
brief paragraph the divergent views on whether Noah should be considered "righteous" in his generation. These are responses by
2456:
2321:
2024:
least in the first three pages, none of them were editions of classical sources. As you say: Lots of sources; which ones good?
1775:
1257:
1089:
971:
758:
Catholic Church has a regular cycle of Bible readings as well, but I don't see any articles relating to those specific readings
280:
227:
150:
83:
17:
368:
but the focus here is to explain the content of the Jewish exegetical readings, not to explain Genesis in Knowledge's voice.
1161:
770:
this article, and probably all the others in this grouping, should be deleted as POV forks and otherwise violations of policy
632:
2745:
and would do with redacting and sourcing, but that does not in principle invalidate the argument that we need this article.
2842:
2678:
Torah readings are encapsulated in this and similar articles. The nominator would have been well-advised to seek input at
1585:
other religious groups with a set program of Biblical readings? I could easily imagine several hundred, if not maybe even
880:
2931:
For comparison, I looked for another religion article, one that has WP:GOOD status, to compare this article to. Look at
2636:
2618:
Would Wikibooks or Wikiversity be a better place to host a lot of this? It's good work, but maybe not encyclopedic. —
1178:
I agree this discussion should be about all of them, the same concerns exist in all of them that this AFD is for. —
144:
2906:"The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice"
2730:
2686:. As a comparative exercise, surely the nominator and John Carter would not delete the thousands of articles about
1495:
1026:
212:
3036:
2293:
that we will have to remove all the duplicate content in them which is already covered in related articles (like
40:
900:
do not constitute a soapbox or a guide; perhaps you should read up on Jewish traditions before discarding them.
3004:
have overlapping "story" or "character" articles, and consistency asks us to keep it for that reason as well. –
2339:
713:
John, regrettably you are attributing things to this article that don't exist and that simply do not compare, (
140:
379:
2850:
precisely because it is the commentary that is of chief importance in Judaism. This is what is known as the
2640:
654:
481:
3017:
2992:
2964:
2875:
2832:
2815:
2794:
2774:
2755:
2721:
2703:
2610:
2571:
2497:
2463:
2406:
2391:
2373:
2328:
2282:
2246:
2203:
2123:
2105:
1992:
1959:
1916:
1891:
1874:
1839:
1782:
1698:
1641:
1614:
1599:
1571:
1499:
1477:
1461:
1435:
1407:
1377:
1350:
1329:
1306:
1264:
1213:
1191:
1173:
1148:
1116:
1096:
1066:
1042:
1008:
978:
935:
909:
822:
785:
708:
680:
658:
636:
601:
577:
555:
523:
485:
461:
429:
383:
351:
332:
311:
287:
234:
65:
2691:
1536:
for different POV on Biblical topics in general. No one is looking to hide anything or promote an agenda.
190:
2598:
1815:? Steven, I did state above that, if the links included clearly and demonstrably refer to these readings
1623:
to establish the notability of the subject unless they are clearly and explicitly discussing the reading
87:
3032:
2679:
2493:
2369:
1988:
1835:
1637:
1595:
1491:
1302:
931:
842:
Noach (which this article details) is the second chapter in the Old Testament, and retells the story of
818:
704:
628:
502:
u.s. senate, according to his user page, 156.33.89.149 is an IP address for the United States Senate...
61:
36:
452:. Pretend that it's simply called "torah chapter 2" and you'll clearly see that it's not a POV fork. --
2851:
2655:
2651:
2606:
2539:
1576:
First, I think there is the basic point of policy. The fact that some people find the parsha notable
1487:
1457:
1391:
1373:
1325:
1169:
885:
740:
730:
692:
620:
573:
473:
457:
425:
393:
371:
361:
347:
294:
2919:
If the article actually suffered from the criticism put forth, it would instead say something like,
3009:
2478:
2459:
2324:
2196:
2101:
1952:
1887:
1870:
1778:
1694:
1676:
1567:
1427:
1419:
1387:
1260:
1209:
1109:
1092:
1059:
1001:
974:
754:
it and the others are written in a rather clear in-universe, POV way is another strike against them
624:
283:
230:
176:
2115:
2884:
2871:
2750:
2683:
2567:
1725:
1431:
1423:
1038:
749:
744:
696:
156:
2176:
The Modern Men's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Jewish Men on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions
756:": articles can always be improved and perfected, it's a process, but no need rush to delete. "
2811:
2770:
2402:
2387:
2278:
2242:
2158:
The Language of Truth: The Torah Commentary of the Sefat Emet, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Alter of Ger
1610:
1473:
1334:
905:
727:
I do not see any clear evidence of notability of the subject independent of the original texts
676:
583:
now it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and more like a study guide for the religion. That's
505:
328:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
3031:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1101:
He only partially struck the comment - the irrelevant and incorrect job information remains.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2489:
2420:
2365:
2357:
2151:
The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions
1984:
1928:
1831:
1633:
1591:
1298:
1127:
927:
871:
814:
700:
409:
405:
244:
57:
1739:
of a work. For example, imagine that I took a copy of the Bible and I cut it up and made a
2984:
2956:
2828:
2742:
2717:
2632:
2602:
2543:
2484:
2416:
2379:
2302:
1910:
1453:
1401:
1369:
1344:
1321:
1269:
Wholehearted agreement. There are basically two issues here. One, is each reading notable
1245:, that's not ideal. The question is, should in-depth, detailed coverage of Noah be in the
1242:
1185:
1165:
1142:
956:
835:
595:
569:
549:
517:
453:
421:
401:
343:
305:
256:
200:
774:
This is not to say that they might not be acceptable for inclusion in some other WF site
3005:
2699:
2449:
2445:
2314:
2189:
2144:
2097:
2077:
1945:
1883:
1866:
1858:
1768:
1690:
1651:
1563:
1449:
1445:
1250:
1205:
1131:
1102:
1082:
1052:
994:
964:
893:
851:
781:
722:
273:
248:
220:
79:
71:
2014:(that's the plural) notable," I'm really not blowing hot air. One can challenge that
412:. In the case of the last one, the parsha contains most (but not all) of the story of
2867:
2790:
2746:
2738:
2687:
2563:
2432:
2412:
2338:
the broader Biblical material they contain. We already have several articles on the
1941:
1899:
1034:
584:
565:
538:
2807:
2766:
2469:
2398:
2383:
2274:
2238:
1932:
1606:
1469:
901:
672:
420:, but that doesn't mean it's a POV fork - it means it's about a different thing. --
342:
it were a pov fork, it should be deleted, but I'm not convinced that it is a fork.
324:
268:
117:
2298:
1293:
is not the only site out there. There are other Wikimedia Foundation sites, like
1234:
1022:
847:
772:": They are not "pov-forks" of any kind, they represent the subject accurately. "
208:
2535:
2428:
2424:
1808:
1275:
867:
805:
56:
be improved with critical commentary, a point well-raised by delete !voters. —
762:
even though they are probably more notable, given the greater size of that body
392:
What we have here is a name collision. This is not a POV fork - it's about the
2977:
2949:
2824:
2713:
2619:
1905:
1396:
1339:
1180:
1137:
1030:
590:
544:
512:
416:, as well as some other content. It will obviously differ from the article on
300:
216:
2695:
2662:
a case of an artificial or contrived "POV-fork" because this division into
2658:. Sure, there is an overlap with subjects in the Bible, but it's definitely
1980:
1294:
1290:
777:
2435:. Editors have eagerly pointed out that this article may be appropriate at
2922:"The corruption in Genesis 6:11 refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."
2261:
Covenant & Conversation, A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, Genesis
2855:
2785:
2132:
1313:
797:
distinct from the Biblical texts which constitute the readings themselves
417:
413:
2675:
2066:
are Knowledge worthy, and need some coverage in Knowledge itself. I'm
1740:
922:
875:
855:
734:
2859:
2444:
secondary sources, which allow us to write the article in accord with
2237:
If I had a bit of time, I could easily make this a very long list. --
2114:
this set of articles is indispensable, makes Knowledge worth reading.
2306:
2085:
1763:
is not notable. We need reliable sources indicating why its presence
1748:
1647:
1225:
897:
889:
839:
719:
I have sympathy with those who have created and developed the article
260:
252:
1241:
in wikipedia, but this article duplicates it unnecessarily, and per
947:
A lot of people have explained that this article is not about Noah,
2070:
sure whether a full-blown parsha discussion is encyclopedia-worthy.
2944:
2932:
2846:
2559:
2081:
1979:
I still think that it might be possible to move these articles to
1077:
To be fair, he struck the comment already before you posted this.
863:
859:
445:
441:
3025:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2294:
2288:
particular Parsha is notable. Many of those sources discuss the
1282:
1246:
1230:
1018:
990:
952:
843:
561:
504:
96.241.126.33 & 71.174.186.139 are Verizon IP addresses for
365:
204:
360:
This article is not a POVFORK. It is one of 54 articles on the
2733:
so I support in principle to maintain articles on each of the
2182:
Essential Torah: A Complete Guide to the Five Books of Moses
2928:
but this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it.
2802:. Aside from everything else, something that survives for
2131:
It seems that everyone participating agrees that the topic
1675:
relatively speaking. You need to give us a presumption of
2666:
is ancient -- going back over 2,000 years in Judaism, the
2170:
Stringing the Pearls: How to Read the Weekly Torah Portion
1811:. Steven, are you somehow saying that somehow these pages
2731:
We have articles - for instance - on every Sura in Qur'an
2548:"Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of
2208:
Other collections of articles on the parshyot include --
2050:
articles if they remain separate than if they are merged.
2411:
Dauster, please don't personalize this issue, or forget
2553:
2364:
meet Knowledge's own specific policies and guidelines.
2267:
Torah Queeries: Weekly Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible
2164:
Torah Queeries: Weekly Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible
113:
109:
105:
175:
2935:, and, for example, under Attributes, where it says:
2313:
topic is distinct (and notable apart from) them. —
2056:
closer analogy to Catholic readings for this purpose.
2674:
that classical Judaism has relied on for the weekly
1938:
Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion
1646:
John, within Judaism, the sources Dauster cites–the
2866:many of whom have their own articles on Knowledge.
2255:
Nehama Leibowitz: New Studies in the Weekly Parasha
921:- Responding to Yoninah, the fact of their being a
2682:for enlightenment and help. Kindly also note that
1747:collage notable either. We have a case where the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
3039:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2945:Jesus#Proclamation_as_Christ_and_Transfiguration
2534:John Carter—you are requesting an indication of
2415:. We have guidelines and policies for a reason.
2556:According to our article "Our Daily Bread" was
2080:, as an example. Last week's reading features
1662:traditional to a greater or lesser extent. At
810:independent of the biblical readings themselves
2597:: Please see my comments and contributions on
295:Weekly_Torah_portion#Table_of_weekly_readings
189:
8:
793:which have not apparently yet been produced.
667:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
665:Note: This debate has been included in the
396:(or parshah in Hebrew), which has the name
2251:And here are a few more of the same sort:
664:
2903:The main reason the nominator brings is:
1562:I'd appreciate some thoughtful response.
2096:I'm done. Sorry for being long-winded.
1898:Not all the votes may be valid, there's
1755:are notable, but that doesn't mean this
1931:of this (and of the other parashot) in
1237:which cover the material. That content
1224:To be clear, we're not proposing that
2823:I think a simple misunderstanding. --
1627:. If they are discussing the reading
866:are presented. It is appropriate and
739:I cannot see how these articles meet
440:Maybe this will help explain it. The
7:
1548:included in Noah the Weekly Portion.
298:Torah which it appears to be now. —
2468:Agreed. Knowledge, as such, is an
2044:summaries stay separate from that.
24:
2230:New Interpretations on the Parsha
1531:Rather these consisting of a POV
733:is a fundamental ritual of every
2558:"first published in April 1956".
2347:as being a POV fork in some way.
1541:So let me propose the following:
2433:Knowledge is not for everything
2141:The Torah: A Women's Commentary
1382:Those projects have absolutely
884:) for Jewish men to review the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
2224:Studies in the Weekly Parashah
1162:Category:Weekly_Torah_readings
896:. Descriptions of each weekly
1:
2843:Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum
2212:The Torah: Portion by Portion
1468:I took care of the redirect.
1426:• 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) --
1390:isn't a valid argument. Also
881:Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum
1619:My apologies. However, they
2218:Rabbi Frand on the Parashah
267:. They were all created by
3056:
1027:Genesis creation narrative
213:Genesis creation narrative
3018:19:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2993:18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2965:18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2876:15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
2852:Torah portion of the week
2833:20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2816:20:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2795:18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2775:18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2756:13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2722:09:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
2704:22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
2611:13:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2572:23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2498:00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
2464:22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2407:22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2392:20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2374:21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2334:notability of the parsha
2329:17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2283:17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2247:10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2204:05:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2124:01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2106:03:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1993:01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1960:01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1892:00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1840:00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1783:01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1699:00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
823:19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
786:00:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
66:05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
3028:Please do not modify it.
2656:Table of weekly readings
2340:Category:Book of Genesis
1917:22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1875:22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1642:23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1615:22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1600:22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1572:21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1500:21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1478:21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1462:20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1436:19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1408:18:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1386:relevance here, just as
1378:18:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1351:18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1330:18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1307:18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1265:17:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1214:17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1192:17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1174:17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1149:16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1117:15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1097:15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1067:15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1043:15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
1009:15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
979:15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
936:15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
910:15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
709:14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
681:14:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
659:14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
637:13:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
602:17:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
578:16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
556:13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
524:13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
486:13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
462:12:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
430:12:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
384:11:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
352:11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
333:09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
312:13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
288:06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
235:05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
199:Article appears to be a
32:Please do not modify it.
2692:Category:Western films
874:: there is a specific
729:": Wrong, because the
2864:standard commentators
2540:Weekly Torah portions
1751:are notable, and the
888:, as codified in the
2652:Weekly Torah portion
1929:Significant coverage
1687:you are out of line.
1488:Islamic view of Noah
886:weekly Torah portion
731:Weekly Torah portion
394:Weekly Torah portion
362:Weekly_Torah_portion
2599:Talk:Noach (parsha)
1753:contents they cover
1444:Someone just found
263:. There's at least
1822:as these readings,
1817:as these readings,
1452:had been deleted!
1278:policy requirement
850:, and, later, the
48:The result was
2753:
1729:
1335:Book of Leviticus
1271:in and of itself,
1080:
683:
670:
640:
623:comment added by
506:Ashburn, Virginia
498:Dauster works in
476:comment added by
374:comment added by
3047:
3030:
2991:
2989:
2982:
2963:
2961:
2954:
2751:
2644:
2627:
2462:
2358:Anthony of Padua
2327:
2201:
2199:Let's discuss it
2193:
1957:
1955:Let's discuss it
1949:
1933:reliable sources
1915:
1913:
1908:
1813:transcend policy
1781:
1723:
1605:the reading. --
1492:Til Eulenspiegel
1406:
1404:
1399:
1349:
1347:
1342:
1263:
1190:
1188:
1183:
1147:
1145:
1140:
1114:
1112:Let's discuss it
1106:
1095:
1078:
1064:
1062:Let's discuss it
1056:
1006:
1004:Let's discuss it
998:
977:
870:. Responding to
808:on these topics
671:
639:
617:
600:
598:
593:
554:
552:
547:
522:
520:
515:
488:
410:Pinchas (parsha)
406:Shoftim (parsha)
386:
310:
308:
303:
286:
245:Pinchas (parsha)
233:
194:
193:
179:
131:
121:
103:
34:
3055:
3054:
3050:
3049:
3048:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3037:deletion review
3026:
2985:
2978:
2976:
2957:
2950:
2948:
2630:
2621:
2550:Our Daily Bread
2544:Our Daily Bread
2485:Our Daily Bread
2454:
2319:
2303:Book of genesis
2197:
2191:
1953:
1947:
1940:a 2009 book by
1911:
1906:
1904:
1773:
1757:individual work
1402:
1397:
1395:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1255:
1186:
1181:
1179:
1143:
1138:
1136:
1110:
1104:
1087:
1060:
1054:
1002:
996:
969:
957:Book of Genesis
723:primary sources
618:
596:
591:
589:
550:
545:
543:
532:Ok this is the
518:
513:
511:
500:the white house
471:
402:Shemot (parsha)
369:
306:
301:
299:
278:
257:Korach (parsha)
225:
136:
127:
94:
78:
75:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3053:
3051:
3042:
3041:
3021:
3020:
2995:
2968:
2967:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2896:
2889:
2888:
2878:
2835:
2818:
2797:
2777:
2759:
2758:
2724:
2706:
2680:WP:TALKJUDAISM
2645:
2613:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2542:. You mention
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2376:
2348:
2336:independent of
2271:
2270:
2269:
2264:
2258:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2227:
2221:
2215:
2186:
2179:
2173:
2167:
2161:
2155:
2148:
2145:Noach (parsha)
2137:
2136:
2126:
2094:
2093:
2072:
2071:
2058:
2057:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2045:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2025:
2020:
2019:
2006:
2005:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1977:
1963:
1962:
1920:
1919:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1688:
1680:
1672:
1659:
1655:
1652:Midrash Rabbah
1629:as the reading
1625:as the reading
1559:
1558:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1528:
1527:
1515:
1514:
1481:
1480:
1465:
1464:
1450:Noach (parsha)
1446:Noach (Parsha)
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1316:is a POV fork
1286:
1217:
1216:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1070:
1069:
1045:
1011:
982:
981:
941:
940:
939:
938:
913:
912:
894:Shulchan Aruch
852:Tower of Babel
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
801:
717:in italics): "
685:
684:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
467:
466:
465:
464:
448:which has the
376:71.174.186.139
355:
354:
317:
316:
315:
314:
249:Balak (parsha)
197:
196:
133:
80:Noach (parsha)
74:
72:Noach (parsha)
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3052:
3040:
3038:
3034:
3029:
3023:
3022:
3019:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2996:
2994:
2990:
2988:
2983:
2981:
2973:
2970:
2969:
2966:
2962:
2960:
2955:
2953:
2946:
2942:
2937:
2936:
2934:
2930:
2926:
2921:
2920:
2918:
2913:
2912:
2910:
2905:
2904:
2902:
2897:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2879:
2877:
2873:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2848:
2844:
2839:
2836:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2819:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2801:
2798:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2787:
2781:
2778:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2761:
2760:
2757:
2754:
2748:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2725:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2710:
2707:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2688:Cowboy movies
2685:
2681:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2629:
2625:
2617:
2614:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2593:
2592:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2560:
2555:
2554:
2549:
2545:
2541:
2537:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2486:
2480:
2475:
2474:as wikipedia,
2471:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2461:
2458:
2453:
2452:
2447:
2443:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2354:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2323:
2318:
2317:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2291:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2265:
2262:
2259:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2231:
2228:
2225:
2222:
2219:
2216:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2202:
2200:
2195:
2194:
2187:
2183:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2171:
2168:
2165:
2162:
2159:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2146:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2127:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2074:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2060:
2059:
2054:
2053:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2007:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1951:
1950:
1943:
1942:Reuven Hammer
1939:
1934:
1930:
1925:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1903:LONG shot. —
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1784:
1780:
1777:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1727:
1726:edit conflict
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:Parashat Noah
1517:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1393:
1392:WP:OTHERLANGS
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1000:
999:
992:
987:
984:
983:
980:
976:
973:
968:
967:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
937:
933:
929:
924:
920:
917:
916:
915:
914:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
824:
820:
816:
811:
807:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
742:
741:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
690:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
668:
663:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
647:
645:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
615:
603:
599:
594:
586:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:Template:Sura
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
548:
540:
535:
531:
525:
521:
516:
509:
507:
501:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
487:
483:
479:
478:156.33.89.149
475:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
385:
381:
377:
373:
367:
363:
359:
353:
349:
345:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
321:
313:
309:
304:
296:
291:
290:
289:
285:
282:
277:
276:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
229:
224:
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
3027:
3024:
3001:
2997:
2986:
2979:
2971:
2958:
2951:
2880:
2837:
2820:
2803:
2799:
2784:
2779:
2762:
2734:
2726:
2708:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2647:
2623:
2615:
2594:
2557:
2551:
2547:
2483:
2479:WP:QUOTEFARM
2473:
2470:encyclopedia
2450:
2441:
2436:
2361:
2352:
2343:
2335:
2315:
2310:
2289:
2198:
2190:
2128:
2111:
2095:
2089:
2067:
2063:
2041:
2036:
2015:
2011:
1999:
1972:
1968:
1954:
1946:
1923:
1854:
1852:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1812:
1769:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1744:
1736:
1732:
1683:
1667:
1663:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1553:
1532:
1523:
1519:
1510:
1505:
1483:
1482:
1448:and thought
1441:
1415:
1414:
1388:WP:OTHERCRAP
1383:
1365:
1317:
1277:
1270:
1251:
1238:
1200:
1157:
1111:
1103:
1083:
1061:
1053:
1047:
1013:
1003:
995:
985:
965:
960:
948:
944:
918:
879:
831:
809:
796:
792:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
738:
726:
718:
714:
688:
651:72.78.45.217
648:
643:
642:
619:— Preceding
613:
612:
533:
503:
499:
472:— Preceding
468:
449:
437:
397:
389:
388:
370:— Preceding
357:
356:
338:
319:
318:
274:
269:User:Dauster
264:
240:
221:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2885:WP:PRESERVE
2684:WP:NOTPAPER
2490:John Carter
2442:independent
2366:John Carter
2353:as a group,
2112:Speedy keep
2064:parashiyyot
2037:parashiyyot
2012:parashiyyot
1985:John Carter
1855:speedy keep
1832:John Carter
1761:this Parsha
1634:John Carter
1592:John Carter
1554:Lech Lecha,
1366:Observation
1299:John Carter
1276:notability
928:John Carter
872:John Carter
815:John Carter
750:WP:NOTPAPER
745:WP:NOTGUIDE
701:John Carter
697:WP:NOTGUIDE
163:free images
58:Crisco 1492
2858:. Note in
2603:Jasonasosa
2601:. Thanks,
2546:. You say
2536:Notability
2380:Jasonasosa
2299:Noah's ark
2016:statement,
1863:WT:Judaism
1735:, and the
1731:between a
1684:inter alia
1677:good faith
1621:do nothing
1587:thousands,
1454:Dougweller
1370:Bachrach44
1322:Bachrach44
1235:Noah's ark
1166:Bachrach44
1031:Flood myth
1023:Noah's Ark
963:wiki. —
848:Noah's Ark
838:explains,
836:Bachrach44
715:your words
570:Bachrach44
454:Bachrach44
422:Bachrach44
344:Dougweller
217:Flood myth
209:Noah's Ark
3033:talk page
3006:Roscelese
2804:millennia
2668:divisions
2616:Weak keep
2421:WP:WEIGHT
2098:StevenJ81
1981:Wikibooks
1884:StevenJ81
1882:Second.
1867:Debresser
1853:Move for
1691:StevenJ81
1564:StevenJ81
1524:Christian
1295:Wikibooks
1291:wikipedia
1239:should be
1206:Arxiloxos
1128:WP:CANVAS
673:• Gene93k
450:name Noah
37:talk page
3035:or in a
3014:contribs
2868:Bus stop
2856:parashah
2743:WP:SYNTH
2735:parshiot
2620:Justin (
2564:Bus stop
2417:WP:CFORK
2378:I think
2344:specific
2185:portion.
2133:Parashah
1671:million.
1428:Virgil11
1420:Virgil11
1314:Kedoshim
1243:WP:CFORK
1035:Alansohn
878:(called
633:contribs
625:Caswellm
621:unsigned
474:unsigned
418:Phinehas
414:Phinehas
372:unsigned
124:View log
39:or in a
2895:delete.
2808:Nyttend
2676:Shabbat
2672:lessons
2664:parshas
2446:WP:NPOV
2437:another
2399:Dauster
2384:Dauster
2362:clearly
2290:content
2275:Dauster
2239:Dauster
2154:detail.
2129:Comment
2116:Сол-раз
1969:Comment
1924:Comment
1859:wp:snow
1749:Parshas
1741:collage
1737:content
1664:minimum
1607:Dauster
1583:and all
1470:Yoninah
1442:Comment
1158:Comment
1132:WP:SOCK
1048:Comment
945:Comment
923:mitzvah
919:Comment
902:Yoninah
876:mitzvah
868:notable
856:Abraham
840:Parshat
735:Shabbat
644:Comment
614:Comment
438:comment
339:Comment
325:Dauster
241:Comment
201:POVFORK
169:WP refs
157:scholar
97:protect
92:history
2739:WP:NOR
2413:WP:AGF
2307:Parsha
2192:Cullen
2086:Balaam
2042:parsha
1973:should
1948:Cullen
1900:WP:SPA
1827:assume
1679:, too.
1650:, the
1648:Talmud
1578:per se
1511:per se
1226:Parsha
1105:Cullen
1055:Cullen
997:Cullen
955:, and
949:per se
898:parsha
890:Talmud
862:, and
689:Delete
585:WP:NOT
539:WP:NOT
534:second
261:Shlach
253:Chukat
141:Google
101:delete
54:should
3002:don't
2933:Shiva
2847:Rashi
2825:Shuki
2791:talk
2729:eep.
2714:Yoavd
2082:Balak
2078:Balak
1907:raeky
1533:FORK,
1506:Keep.
1398:raeky
1341:raeky
1182:raeky
1139:raeky
864:Jacob
860:Isaac
834:. As
592:raeky
564:(see
546:raeky
514:raeky
446:torah
442:torah
302:raeky
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
3010:talk
2998:Keep
2972:Note
2883:per
2881:Keep
2872:talk
2860:this
2838:Keep
2829:talk
2821:Keep
2812:talk
2800:Keep
2780:keep
2771:talk
2763:Keep
2752:T@lk
2718:talk
2709:Keep
2700:talk
2696:IZAK
2670:and
2648:Keep
2607:talk
2595:Keep
2568:talk
2538:for
2494:talk
2451:Jess
2429:WP:V
2427:and
2425:WP:N
2403:talk
2388:talk
2370:talk
2316:Jess
2311:this
2295:Noah
2279:talk
2243:talk
2120:talk
2102:talk
2090:this
2084:and
1989:talk
1888:talk
1871:talk
1857:per
1836:talk
1809:WP:N
1770:Jess
1765:here
1733:work
1695:talk
1668:You,
1638:talk
1611:talk
1596:talk
1568:talk
1557:be.)
1496:talk
1484:Keep
1474:talk
1458:talk
1432:talk
1424:talk
1416:Keep
1394:. —
1384:zero
1374:talk
1326:talk
1320:? --
1303:talk
1283:Noah
1252:Jess
1247:Noah
1233:and
1231:Noah
1210:talk
1201:Keep
1170:talk
1130:and
1084:Jess
1039:talk
1029:and
1019:Noah
1014:Keep
991:Noah
986:Keep
966:Jess
961:this
953:Noah
932:talk
906:talk
892:and
844:Noah
832:Keep
819:talk
806:WP:N
782:talk
778:IZAK
743:and
705:talk
695:and
677:talk
655:talk
629:talk
574:talk
562:Sura
482:talk
458:talk
426:talk
408:and
398:Noah
390:Keep
380:talk
366:Noah
358:Keep
348:talk
329:talk
320:Keep
275:Jess
222:Jess
215:and
205:Noah
177:FENS
151:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
50:keep
2980:Zad
2952:Zad
2786:DGG
2767:Avi
2747:JFW
2660:not
2273:--
2068:not
1490:).
752:. "
725:. "
203:of
191:TWL
126:•
122:– (
3016:)
3012:⋅
2987:68
2959:68
2874:)
2831:)
2814:)
2793:)
2773:)
2749:|
2720:)
2712:--
2702:)
2626:vf
2622:ko
2609:)
2570:)
2496:)
2455:·
2423:,
2419:,
2405:)
2390:)
2372:)
2320:·
2305:,
2301:,
2297:,
2281:)
2245:)
2122:)
2104:)
1991:)
1890:)
1873:)
1865:.
1838:)
1774:·
1745:my
1697:)
1640:)
1613:)
1598:)
1570:)
1498:)
1476:)
1460:)
1434:)
1376:)
1328:)
1318:of
1305:)
1256:·
1212:)
1204:--
1172:)
1135:—
1088:·
1081:—
1041:)
1025:,
1021:,
970:·
934:)
908:)
858:,
846:,
821:)
784:)
707:)
679:)
669:.
657:)
649:--
635:)
631:•
576:)
484:)
460:)
428:)
404:,
382:)
350:)
331:)
279:·
265:43
259:,
255:,
251:,
247:,
226:·
211:,
207:,
171:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
3008:(
2870:(
2827:(
2810:(
2789:(
2769:(
2741:/
2727:K
2716:(
2698:(
2643:☯
2641:M
2639:☺
2637:C
2635:☮
2633:T
2631:❤
2628:)
2624:a
2605:(
2566:(
2492:(
2460:♥
2457:Δ
2401:(
2386:(
2368:(
2325:♥
2322:Δ
2277:(
2263:;
2257:;
2241:(
2232:.
2226:;
2220:;
2214:;
2118:(
2100:(
1987:(
1912:t
1886:(
1869:(
1834:(
1779:♥
1776:Δ
1728:)
1724:(
1693:(
1636:(
1609:(
1594:(
1566:(
1494:(
1472:(
1456:(
1430:(
1422:(
1403:t
1372:(
1346:t
1324:(
1301:(
1261:♥
1258:Δ
1208:(
1187:t
1168:(
1144:t
1093:♥
1090:Δ
1037:(
975:♥
972:Δ
930:(
904:(
817:(
780:(
703:(
675:(
653:(
627:(
597:t
572:(
551:t
519:t
480:(
456:(
424:(
378:(
346:(
327:(
307:t
284:♥
281:Δ
231:♥
228:Δ
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.