Talk:Rosh (disambiguation)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Judaism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles

Is this entry necessary for a general interest encyclopaedia? Just because Eaton's public domain 1800s Christian encyclopaedia has thousands of entries doesn't mean that this encyclopaedia needs to do so. If we followed this kind of micro-entry format, we'd end up with thousands of tiny entries for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I totally agree that Wikipedia needs many comprehensive articles on religion, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a religious dictionary or encyclopaedia. All I am asking is that we make sure that our entries are comprehensive, and not unnecessarily fractured into micro-entries. Sub-entries should only be created when there is a compelling need to do so. RK

I wonder if the observation above might pique scrutiny of its underlying presuppositions. Can it be that the academic secularist mindset to deny religious expression and inquiry a place at the intellectual table is at work here? If we indeed live in a post-modern age, why cannot we allow the world-views and interest of the audience to allocate the topics? The delight of the Wikipedia concept is that it responds to the real world that is "out there," rather than to the values of dead, white Euro-centric rationalists. Moreover, this amazing electronic medium is simply not constricted in its topics by "pressure on the pages," printing costs, and library shelf-space. If you don't like an article in Wikipedia, no one is forcing you to read it, and it costs no one anything to leave it in. Since any article is searchable, there is no clutter; one no longer needs to riffle through heavy volumes of other articles. The physical constraints that generated the impulse to limit information, thankfully, no longer apply: if the reason for it is gone, so should the artifical limits! Someone might find, on criteria that have not been dictated to them by traditionalist, nanny academic gate-keepers, that particular sliver of knowledge quite fascinating. Stop quenching the joy of discovery and the freedom of information, I say! 71.216.58.211 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)JMR, PhD[reply]