text:
Talk:Conversion to Judaism

Duplicates
This page is a double duplicate. It should be merged with either Religious conversion or the exclusively Jewish Ger tzedek. JFW | T@lk  23:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Jew by choice"
This section is awfully confusing. It seems completely redundant with the general topic of conversion, but then it talks about the notion that all Jews are Jews by choice in this day and age. I'll try to clean it up, but don't want to do so without giving notice on this page. --Leifern 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Not many would agree with the notion that all Jews are Jews by choice. This is a modern concept for which I have seen no widespread acceptance.  It is a perspective held by some Reform Jews, however.  --Geofferic (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Annulment
Note: This is back in the News - one of the people who may have had their conversions annulled is no less than Ivanka Trump Shanac (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be more clear about the basis for so-called annulment - a reader may infer that a beit din may at any time annul a person's conversion if he/she is observed violating any element of halacha. I don't believe this is true, because it would end up being awfully arbitrary. I am only familiar with one such case, the so-called Paula Cohen case, and that was when she married a Kohan immediately after her conversion; and it became known when she tried to enroll her kids in an Orthodox day school years later. As far as I know, there is no ritual element to the annulment - the London Beit Din simply announced that they weren't going to respect her conversion but didn't want to put the original Beit Din in a bad light. But we can not lead a reader to believe that a convert is being watched with eagle eyes, and if he/she (and particularly she) slips up, her conversion is considered null and her children are no longer Jewish. --Leifern 16:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The Paula case is somewhat different - the LBD simply did not recognise the giur. To annul a giur there needs to be a lot of evidence that the convert is not interested in keeping halakha. The annulment is a legal matter - whether the convert actually needs to be notified I do not know (although this makes sense). There is no ritual for it. Whether the children are retroactively gentiles is even more difficult. If during their birth the mother was living according to halakha this may not be so obvious. JFW | T@lk  19:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Do we have examples or other sources on this issue? It is not as if there is an indefinite "probation period" for a convert, during which time a beit din can annul it if the convert throws off the yoke, so to speak. If there is any meaning to the notion that a conversion is irreversible, then you can't leave this kind of power with a beit din indefinitely. In the Paula Cohen case, it turned out that the Bet Din in Israel also "annulled" its initial conversion, partly also because she emigrated from Israel. It's all very messy; which is why this needs to be pretty precise. --Leifern 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found a case here in the Jerusalem post, in which the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel reserves the right to withhold "final documentation" and possibly annul the conversion if the convert is found to have misled the original bet din about his/her intentions; but implied in this is once the documentation has been granted, it's irreversible. The article also mentions that this came up when a man wanted to annul his marriage to a convert without getting a divorce; and that many Orthodox rabbis opined that such annulment is contrary to halacha. --Leifern 20:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no such thing as formal annullment of a conversion in halakhah. Period. There is only one thing: To conclude that a bet din was misled, and that it conducted a conversion under false pretenses, in which case the conversion isn't "annulled" but is rather considered never to have truly happened in the first place.
 * This, however, is extremely rare. In serious halakhic contexts, it is normally only used when there is a need for a halakhic pretext to annull a conversion for other halakkhic reasons (such as to remove the stigma of mamzerut, as in the famous case with Rav Goren of "the brother and the sister"). In fact, because of the biblical prohibition not to "oppress the convert," a process of "checking up" on converts might even be halakhically forbidden in normal circumstances!
 * In the current political climate, where Orthodox rabbis often condemn other Orthodox rabbis with the accusation that their conversions are too lenient (we won't even get into non-Orthodox movements now), sometimes the claim is made that people should be better supervised after their conversion (more to supervise the process conducted by the rabbi in question than to actually deal with the convert!) or that their conversions should be "annulled." Nevertheless this is usually rhetoric and not practice, such that the invalidation of a conversion rarely actually happens.Dovi 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just to be clear, "annulment" means exactly what you are talking about: to decide that an event never took place in the first place, typically because it was made on false pretenses. This is, then, not the same as to reverse a conversion, but to say that it was all a misunderstanding from the very beginning. --Leifern 20:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Truthfully, Leifern is correct that "annulment" means that we know that the convert never intended to commit even minimally to Torah and Mitzvot. In such a case we realize with an unambigous knowledge that there was *never* the bais for conversion. Therefore there is no conversion. See a short Responsa by Rabbi Feinstein Yorah Deoh 157 where he states that in a situation of "umdenoh demuchach" (undeniable assumption) that the convert never intended to keep the commands of G-d there is no conversion whatsoever.

IP 88.152.3.199
Sorry, I was editor IP 88. Thought I was signed in. My remark on the article history page was unnecessary, I apologize for that. --Yodamace1 10:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox/Conservative differences
There are significant differences between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism on these issues -- will try to address --Shirahadasha 07:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Marriage to kohanim
The halachic issue of a union between a female ger and a kohen is involved. I don't have the time to look it into it in detail right now, but if I remember correctly, a marriage may be accepted after the fact though it is always disallowed before the fact. The mechanics and enforcement of this are complicated. In any event, the children of such a union have a perfectly normal status and inherit in fact the kohein status, if I remember correctly. --Leifern 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You remember incorrectly. In Orthodox Judaism, a kohen who marries a ger loses kohanic priveleges and children born of the union do not inherit Kohen status, although the marriage is nonetheless considered a valid marriage after-the-fact. Many Orthodox rabbis will not perform such a marriage, although and some will. In 1996 the Conservative CJLS abolished the rules entirely, holding that such a marriage is fully permitted and there is no effect on Kohen status or children's inheritance. See In doing so, the paper claimed that the prohibition on marrying a convert was Rabbinic rather than Biblical in origin and that the CJLS has the power to overrule all rules of Rabbinic origin. The companion paper  abolishing the prohibition on marriage between a cohen and a divorcee, however, went much further. It has a section called "On Uprooting a Biblical Prohibition" which specificially acknowledges the prohibition involved is Biblical in origin, but declares that the CJLS has a power to abolish Biblical commandments which it deems inexpedient for modern times. It invoked the concept of "Horaat Hasha", exigency of the hour, the canonical example being Elijah the Prophet's dramatic sacrifice on Mount Carmel, violating a prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple in Jerusalem when the Temple was standing. It said:

 * Horaat Hashaa speaks of crisis. Should the current rate of intermarriage be reversed, a future Law Committee may well decide to review this issue. At this time, however, we face a crisis of such proportion we dare not, in good conscious, stand between the marriage of two Jews whose union as forbidden by virtue of his being a Kohen and she a divorcee.

 * Best --Shirahadasha 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to solve the "Who is a Jew?" issue
In this section of the article, I was rather surprised to read the following regarding the 1997 Neeman commission:
 * The plan has been effectively rendered non-existent due to denunciations from haredi rabbis, causing some other Orthodox rabbis to back out, and causing the Israeli Chief rabbinate to not support this program.

It is indeed true that Haredi rabbis harshly denounced the findings of the Neeman commission, and that the Chief Rabbinate disliked them. However, from there to "non-existent" is quite far from reality. The recommendations of the Neeman commission were ratified into law by the Knesset, namely: That there be established a pluralistic institution to train potential converts, who would then go before the batei din of the Chief Rabbinate. The Chief Rabbinate is required by law to give fair conversion hearings to the Institute's graduates, whether the judges are pleased with the institution or not.

This has in fact happened. The Institute of Jewish Studies has been operating since 1999, and thousands of its graduates have been converted through the Chief Rabbinate. It also operates in the army, and nearly all of the thousands of immigrant soldiers converted in recent years have gone through its programs. For more information see here. NetanelY 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 * You are incorrect. The joint conversion institute, as originally envisioned, never even happened. If you are claiming that any significant fraction of Orthodox rabbis respect as valid the original Neeman proposals, please provide firm sources.  I do not know of any such institute, which has its converts accepted by Orthodox Judaism in Israel.  The current institute does not allow for joint Reform, Conservative and Orthodox teaching and conversion. Even the Religious Zionists and the Modern Orthodox have also lost control. This institute that you refer to is now controlled by Ultra-Orthodox rabbis. They have created a new halakha that is stricter than anything known to pre-1970s Orthodox Judaism. They now force everyone to convert their families to Orthodoxy, and not just themselves. Since this is very hard to do the result is that fewer people than ever are being allowed to become Jewish. Mark3 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The Joint Institute was established in 1998 as part of a plan by a government-appointed commission to break the decades-long deadlock between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox movements over control of the conversion process. The commission, headed by then-finance minister Yaakov Ne’eman, called for conversion candidates to undergo preparation at a special institute whose board and faculty would include Orthodox, Reform and Conservative rabbis. The plan reaffirmed the monopoly of the Orthodox chief rabbinate over the conversion ritual itself, but it called on the rabbinate to create special conversion tribunals that were expected to act more leniently than before.
 * Instead, according to Ish-Shalom and others, the tribunals have been stricter than ever. They cite cases of would-be converts who were required to show their intention to practice Orthodox Judaism by moving to Orthodox neighborhoods, sending their children to Orthodox schools and proving that their entire families have adopted Orthodoxy. That, liberals say, puts undue burdens on hundreds of thousands of people who live in Israel and want to be accepted into the mainstream.

 * Pluralist Body Blames Rabbis for Reopening ‘Who Is a Jew?’ Crisis Orly Halpern, The Forward. Feb 16, 2007
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/pluralist-body-blames-rabbis-for-reopening-who/

It is quite true that the Institute accuses the Rabbinate conversion courts of being too strict (even within the bounds of halakhah). In fact, this past week they just announced a "boycott" of the batei din for this reason (see recent article in Hazofe). They claim that up to half their candidates are rejected in the first visit to beit din. (The majority of those are later accepted on their second or third visits.)

However, all of this simply proves what I initially claimed, namely: That the institute has brought thousands of converts through the courts in recent years (the half that were accepted). Even the above article correctly points out that the majority of Russian immigrants who have converted in recent years have done so through the Institute:

 * The Institute of Jewish Studies, which is the body jointly managed by the Israeli government and the Jewish Agency, and whose graduates are the majority of new immigrants who convert...

 * ''Since the Institute of Jewish Studies was set up six years ago, it has succeeded in increasing the number of conversions in the civilian sector two and a half times, and five-fold among soldiers.

So despite all the controversy, the Institute for Jewish Studies has become a very important part of the world of conversion to Judaism in the State of Israel, through the Chief Rabbinate. The article should surely be corrected. NetanelY 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

?
I am shamanist. Can I join the Jewish?

Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This really has nothing to do with the article... I recommend you see your local, or closest, rabbi. You cannot converto to Judaism, however, while still believing in and practicing shamanism.  Tomertalk  00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Random but amusing point
The webcomic One Over Zero starts as a pointless for-the-sake-of-it webcomic and grows into some kind of philosophical examination of metafiction in self-aware comic form. At one point a golem character, Zadok, expresses interest in his originating faith, but since his fictional universe consists largely of a couple meters of desert and a handful of artificial people, he has no way of fulfilling the rituals required to convert. He is literally incapable of Judaism.

This may be the amiable brain-sprainer kind of thought, or just a dull self-evident statement to those with more than casual knowledge of the matter. Let's hope it's the former. --Kiz o r  01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-adulthood Conversion

 * This section needs to be rephrased and/or rewritten because it claims that renunciation can be achieved after the age of majority by "declaring the commitment to remaining a Jew." This, obviously, makes no sense, seeing as this is consistent with adherence to Judaism and would not extricate one from the faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdatheist (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Law of return
One possible reason for undergoing a conversion to Judaism would surely be to be eligible for immigration to Israel under the Law of Return (for example if you self identify as Jewish but still "not Jewish enough" for the Israeli authorities granting the right of return). Why no section on this?--Soylentyellow (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

turn away three times
Since some people believe the urban legend that a rabbi is supposed to turn away a convert three times before converting them, allow me to state unequivocally right now: this is an urban legend! It doesn't matter how many people "believe it" or even if it's "common knowledge" - just as with many other urban legends common belief does not mean anything. If you can find me one single reliable source then I will happily withdraw my objection, but I say this knowing that there are none. (Please note that all information added to wikipedia must be backed by a reliable source). All of the sources you will find (and there are plenty on the web) are unreliable - people who are not experts simply giving their opinion and quoting this common misconception. Please remember that we accept reliable sources. There is no source for this urban legend in the talmud, rambam, rama, the shulkhan aruch, or any other source I've ever seen. You can also read the RCA's geirus procedures or Marc Angel's book (which is cited elsewhere in the article). It is simply not true. Please do not add this information again without a reliable source. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Here's your source: BBC which is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Also, Ruth chapter 1 speaks about discouraging potential converts. The fact that there are many, many, many conversion blogs and conversion related websites that talk about being turned away clearly says this is common knowledge and that it actually does happen. I understand that these cannot be considered reliable (though one should never discount dozens of stories of it happening to them and the dozens of other websites that says it happens). However, I have now provided you with two reliable sources to show that this is not simply some "urban legend" and will edit the article to include this information. Please do not revert unless you can show something reliable that says that it is an urban legend, as opposed to your above original research. --132 02:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * To clarify, there are many sources (such as Ruth, which you quoted, and the gemera), which mention discouraging conversion. I have no problem stating (with a source of course) that conversion is discouraged, or something which quotes the talmudic dictate to "push a convert away with the weaker left hand and draw them nearer with the right hand" (from memory so not a direct quote). My objection is rather narrow - it's with the "turn away 3 times" rule only. I've talked to plenty of rabbis who perform conversions, including some who are considered expert in the field (at least in the US), and they've all said there is no source for this rumor.
 * "Some rabbis used to test would-be converts by turning them away three times, in order to see how sincere and determined they are. This is unusual nowadays."
 * Firstly they emphasize that it's not done today. Secondly, although I don't know much about conversion in the UK, but I have a feeling they've fallen for the same urban legend. As you say however, wikipedia's holy grail is verification, not truth. If you want to say that this is common practice, or even practice at all, you must show where it is implemented. It is not mentioned in the Orthodox, conservative, or Reform procedures for conversion. If you can find another organization which does conversions which does do this, then we can say so, but we need to identify such an organization first. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * We have a reliable source that says it which means the statement can stay, whether or not individual groups have it listed in the official procedures. Period. The reliable source verifies it and that is all that is necessary for inclusion. Besides that, the source says that it's "unusual," not that it doesn't happen. If it doesn't happen, the source would have said, "This doesn't happen anymore though." Stop with your original research. It's not an urban legend (as is shown by the source, many conversion websites, and individual testimony) so stop acting like anyone who believes that it is true is gullible and falling for something that YOU have decided is an urban legend. It has happened, it is happening, and it will happen. Even if it's not happening to every single convert or isn't listed under "official" procedures, that doesn't mean it's an urban legend. Unless you can find a reliable source that actually says it is an urban legend, all this babble is original research, which has no place in any Wikipedia article. If you keep fighting this, I will take it to higher powers. --132 15:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * There is no need to threaten - I feel that we have been able to disagree very amicably up till now and are working well to come to a resolution which meets wikipedia's policies and procedures. I'm not putting WP:OR into an article, nor am I doing any. (Okay, I suppose calling it an urban legend was my own term and is WP:OR, but I was doing that conversationally and would never dream of putting it in the article). I simply said that this fact, if included, had to have a WP:RS. I have presented about a dozen or so sources, none of which include this. You have found one source, which is far less reliable than any of the ones I have brought, which mentions it as something rarely done today. I'm simply asking that this fact be sourced properly and that that be reflected in the article - something which you seem to be open to as well. If we use the BBC source, then we should probably also mention that none of the three major rabbinic organizations include this rule. (Citing their rules which I included links to in my previous comment). To clarify I'm not suggesting we use use the phrase "urban legend" in the article at all - I'm just saying that we need a better source than the original one and that the scope of the source be reflected.
 * Frankly I understand your somewhat visceral reaction. This idea is so pervasive that it has almost become a reality in and of itself in that perception frequently affects reality. I was taught that it was true, and took it as fact until recently when I had a conversation with a rabbi who does conversions for the RCA and helped draft their policies. Only afterwards did I start digging and realized it had no source. It is impossible to prove a negative so I can't prove to you that it doesn't exist "somewhere". However I can insist that we use a WP:RS. If you can find a reliable Jewish source, either classical or contemporary, for this then by all means include it with that source, but so far none has been located. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note here's another article on Marc Angel's group's website which would probably count as a RS - it's not in the description there either. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * You need to understand that omission from "official" procedure listings does not mean it doesn't happen (which, by the way, two of those four sources are not "official" procedures at all, as opposed to commentary on the process). I'm sure official procedures do not say, "Invite the potential convert to your house on Friday evening." or "Have the potential convert do a Jewish-oriented community service project." or "Have the potential convert participate in a local Jewish organization." etc, etc, etc, but there are many rabbis who do just that.
 * I suggested higher power because you're being unreasonable. I gave you a source that is reliable according to all Wikipedia standards and you decided it wasn't reliable and that they were buying into the "urban legend." I told you that it happens and that there is personal testimony of it happening and you decided it couldn't be because it's not listed in official procedures. You are advocating removing an entire sentence that many converts around the world would consider as common knowledge, as an urban legend based on nothing that you can actually prove. I'm more than willing to work through this, but only if you actually acknowledge what is and what isn't. It isn't an urban legend and my source is reliable. --132 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: A rabbi says it happens Conversion information that says it happens Another AllExperts response stating it Another conversion site SoYouWanna

Most wouldn't be considered reliable, but I wanted to include a bunch of .org sites that state this, a few general "information" sites, plus something from an actual rabbi.

Here's one more RELIABLE source that lists an author: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n16209884

--132 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And I have now found an official statement by an official group (Reform): here. --132 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this to reflect not only reality, but also the cited source, which contracted the previous wording. Short of a rabbinic source of which I am unaware, I cannot see how anyone can use the word 'required' when discussing the tradition of turning converts away 3 times. Also, the use of the word 'adamant' seems to me to imply that the rabbi was supposed to flatly refuse and turn them out, which I have never heard of happening even among those who have ever followed this tradition. Unless someone edits this to use a reliable source that actually says that rabbis have *ever* been *required* to turn anyone away for conversion any number of times (which is purely hogwash - it's just a tradition among some Ashkenaz that few follow these days), I believe my edit is proper and reflect the actual information in the actual cited source. --Geofferic (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) How about someone check shulchan aruch, hilchos geirut? or mesechet geirut? (or is it sofrim?) both mention this. Likewise check the references in toldos aharon on the mentioned verse in ruth.84.228.226.155 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an orthodox rabbi who works with those converting. I never practice the "turn away" in a formal manner. I simply hand those interested in conversion a copy of "The Gerus Guide" and ask them to read the first fifty pages before scheduling their next meeting with me. About 1 in 4 calls to schedule it. The guide gives a realistic picture of what it takes to convert and only the serious will show up. It is not 100% perfect and I'm sure that something more thorough will be written in a few years. After that, about 1 in 2 will finish their conversion with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.49.243 (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

3O opinion
Hi all! I have not read the arguments so far but I will in half an hour (have meeting to attend). I have checked the BBC reference and would say this (initially); it does not say who the author is, nor does it give its sources. As such, I'd say that it is not the best reference that could probably be found, but it may technically meet WP:RS. I think it would be better to find a second party source that states the author and/or states its references. Using a primary source is perfectly possible here as long as you can show that primary source referenced by a reliable third-party. Back soon. :-)  fr33k man  t -  c 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps starting with this search at Google Books?  fr33k man  t -  c 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I've found another source (here) that I believe would be considered reliable as well. --132 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without speaking of the relevance of the content, this source is reliable and can be used.  fr33k man  t -  c 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also found an official statement from an official source about this: here. I will add the two new citations to the article, with the official one listed first. --132 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, this one is an official source from someone with a vested interest in conversion and therefore looks primary to me. Whilst it can be used to support arguments, it can't be the only reference to support that argument (which ever that is). It would be better if a source can be found that references it, then we can use it, and the primary source. Wikipedia, can't be the first place to quote a primary source, we need quote the person who quoted it (if that makes any sense).  fr33k  man  t -  c 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have reviewed it more. It can be used for Reform Jews, the organization behind it has a widely respected reputation (checked). :-)  fr33k man  t -  c 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I really appreciate the clarification and the source reviews. --132 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

sources so far, proposal
The bnet article is by far the most definitive thing found so far, however I don't think the business network is exactly a RS when it comes to Jewish law. As for most of the other sources you've found, (including the "fly fishing rabbi"), they all say the same precisely what I've been saying, which is that they would NOT turn away a convert 3 times. In fact, the Reform site you found says exactly what the reform site I originally posted said, which is not to do that.

Anyway, I think we're close to a resolution here, so let me take a stab at a proposal that I think will make us all happy (or unhappy depending on your view of compromise :-)) - it's based largely on the changes you've already made. Let me know what you think: "A tradition holds that a prospective convert should be turned away three times as a test of sincerity, though most rabbis no longer follow the tradition.  Neither the RCA nor the Rabbinic Assembly, the leading American Orthodox and Conservative organizations, mention this action in their conversion policies, with the CCAR and URJ insert something here actively opposing it's practice." Where I say "insert something here", a line should be added explaining who exactly those two orgs are. (I'm not sure exactly how to describe them). Frankly it's not ideal from my point of view, as I would think that a Jewish law or tradition should have a Jewish source to cite, but I'm willing to compromise. Thoughts? --Bachrach44 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Change "mention this action" to "suggest taking this action" and I think that would be fine. Remember that I never said it was a common practice or that it happened all the time, just that it did happen, which meant that it wasn't an urban legend as you claimed it was (because an urban legend would be that it never actually happened, which is quite far from the truth on this subject). As for the "insert something here," I think links to the appropriate articles might be sufficient. --132 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Either sounds quite neutral and generic to me. Someone should just go ahead and make the changes perhaps?  fr33k man  t -  c 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Whether or not something happens does not make it a tradition. Judaism has an extensive legal system, known as halakha, which comes with it. Conversion is one of the things which would be covered by halakhic rules. Tradition is also carefully defined in Judaism, in part because tradition can become law. To say that there is a Jewish tradition of X, or that X is required, should require a halakhic source. Google searches, blogs, and BBC reports do not decide the halakha. My initial challenge was to find a halakhic source for this "tradition". (As a side note, there is no halakhic source for this, however I can't prove it because I can't prove a negative). I could stick to my initial position by insisting on a RS, but then it would escalate into a massive wiki-argument and frankly I've already spent far more time on this than I'd have liked. I'll go make the changes we've agreed upon above and keep my eyes on the halakhic and academic literature - if someone publishes "the origins of the myth of turning away a convert three times" I'll reopen discussion. :-) --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That seems reasonable. Thank you for doing so; you show yourself to be a good editor and someone others could work with by doing so! :-)  fr33k man  t -  c 01:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * In the name of full disclosure I also changed the phrase "A tradition holds" to "There is a tradition". I simply felt that the word "holds" isn't usually used that way by most people, and I wanted the phrase to be easily understandable to all people. --Bachrach44 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * That's fine. Also, I thought I'd let it be known now that we've settled on something that I converted through Orthodox standards and I was, indeed, turned away three times. This is why I was so adamant about not completely removing the statement, but I knew my personal experience wouldn't count as a source. ;-) --132 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * No, it would have been OR :-) I think this is a good solution. I've heard of it in the past as well and I'm Christian. It does sound like an interesting idea; whether it is done a lot or not, religion should need a commitment! :-) Take care guys and Happy Editing!  fr33k man  t -  c 17:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 * If you're still in touch with the rabbi who converted you, it might be interesting to ask him why he did that, and if he had a source or was just doing it because it seemed like a good test. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre Statement
Someone seems to have added the following,

The Orthodox rejection of non-Orthodox conversions is derived less from qualms with the conversion process itself, since Conservative and even some Reform conversions are ostensibly very similar to Orthodox conversions with respect to duration and content, but rather the belief that a non-Orthodox Rabbi is not qualified to oversee and perform a conversion.

It was [later] tagged as original research. This is a terrible statement; I would say it falls under the "not even wrong" category. Someone please get rid of it and replace it with something reasonable. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This is actually spot-on. The Orthodox argument is that because a non-Orthodox rabbi is not really a rabbi, then any bet din presided over by a non-orthodox rabbi is invalid.  Thus, any conversions by such a bet din are invalid.  I will try to find some references and fix it up.   Geofferic   T•C ✡ 09:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as anything other than reality. Orthodox rabbis never accepted non-orthodox rabbis as their peers. We use the term rabbi when referring to non-Orthodox clergy as a courtesy and not as a legitimization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.49.243 (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, while this is perfectly true, the conversion process they do is NOTHING like the Orthodox one. This makes the above statement false, regardless to the fact that Orthodox Judaism annuls those "Rabbis"

Section: Early debate on requirement for circumcision
I have made a number of alterations to this section and I am considering expanding it a good deal, but I will wait to see if I get any feed back first. Halakah, by definition, is not settled. Statement removed. Removed incorrect inline reference to Shabbat 137a, replaced with citation to print source with correct citation to Shabbat 135a. Added clarity to a sentence (started with "This view..." when two views were in the previous thought, and the later view of that thought was not the view referenced). Clarified a section purporting to support the necessity of circumcision for converts, but actually referencing a discussion about the necessity of conversion for Jews by birth. Added cited reference supporting the opposing view that circumcision is not necessary. Replaced dead link to Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 2 with a newer link. Not real comfortable with my citation format, any corrections would be appreciated!  Geofferic  T•C ✡ 09:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitgairut verses Gerut
Can anyone explain what is the difference between Hitgairut and Gerut please? Thank you very much :) 81.103.121.144 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gerut denotes "conversion to Judaism" as a legal concept (laws regarding the process, the legal status of people involved etc.) whereas Hitgairut denotes the actuall act of going through the conversion (the nominalization of the reflexive verb lehitgayer, "to undergo a conversion"). Dan ☺ 23:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Section: Intra-Orthodox views
I've been making a few minor edits this evening to try and clean up some language and otherwise improve the tone of this entry, and this section as a whole strikes me as very problematic. The entire tone of the third paragraph and beyond seems to be far from objective and quite biased against the views and actions of the Chief Rabbi. That said, I'm really not sure how to FIX this problem. If anyone else can think of better wording that might get the information across without sounding as confrontational or biased perhaps you could take a crack at improving this. Mrspock08 (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a pity that Lord Rabbi Sacks is even mentioned in the section of conversion to Judaism. Whilst some of his views are liberal, he remains a recognized Orthodox Rabbi. Orthodoxy has a rather wide berth and many rabbis of different views will still sit together as equals. The London Beis Din which conducts most conversions in the UK is well recognized by all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.49.243 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This section should be removed. Not only is it using original research, but it is of a VERY controversial nature. Orthodox Rabbis must respect each other and their views, when one is not doing a particular action correctly he can be revokes of the right to to such action (See Shlomo_Aviner#Controversy). The view presented in this section is of a very demeaning nature, seems like the person who wrote it has some personal issue with the Orthodox view of conversion to Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.213.105 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had removed the entire section since it is old, not cited, has only 1 working valid reference. That single reference is for a short statement that does not represent the main idea of this entire section, which is to degrade the view of the singular Orthodox conversions. That "Section" could be summed to a single sentence which would mean nothing to differring "Intra-Orthodox" views, since in that 1 reference controversy all agree on the way of conversion just not about how it actually happened. Please do not restore this, this is old, invalid, biased, and unreferenced! if anyone thinks this one reference has any significance, rephrase it into another section or something. Do not restore a whole section of invalidities. 84.108.213.8 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It had a number of citations, not just one - please don't remove it in its entirety again. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? it has 2 one of which is a news article i specifically wrote about. The BBC one, which you obviously did not even READ, is a false citation which says nothing about the line it is cited in in that section!!!!!!!!!! It does not say anything about differences between Orthodox views. PLEASE READ BEFORE making a fool out of yourself. let go of your pride this is an encyclopedia, just admit being wrong. You didn't even apologize for making a false claim about the first revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.213.8 (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will add to this that a Badatz (Not "Rabbinical Supreme Court") has no authority in Israel. The Rabanut, which is the religious authority, did rule the exact opposite which is that those conversions are fine. This is all stated in the 1 valid news reference, you also did not read! 84.108.213.8 (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I now removed irrelevant citations, missing citation and fixed the last paragraph. Do not revert with out having a basic claim, thank you. 84.108.213.8 (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the same revert again while i DID put a reason for it!! what the hell? this is what i wanted to write (and fix later) http://pastebin.com/4dL4u9b5 I will not edit this further when this "missing reason" claim keeps repeating it self after i had a reason there. 84.108.213.8 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since there is not a single reply to my claims here, I am to assume that you agree with me. Since I did and still do have reasons for editing, I will edit again, for the last time hopefully. 84.108.213.8 (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction and the use of "righteous gentiles"
In the introduction it claims, "It is not necessary for a person to formally convert to Judaism in order to adopt any or all beliefs and practices of Judaism. In Judaism, such people are referred to as righteous gentiles (see, for example the character of Job)." There is no reference for the use of this term, and a Google search for "righteous gentiles" seems to imply the term is used to refer not to gentiles practicing Judaism but rather gentiles who risked their lives to save the lives of Jews in the Holocaust. TEApollonius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC).
 * The confusion is the result of the Israeli government and the Jewish community at large needing to find a way to recognize the many Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. As such, a pre-existing but rarely applied term was taken.  The orginal meaning can be found in the Talmud and Maimonides.  Sometimes, it is necessary to go beyond google in your research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.49.243 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Look up "חסיד אומות העולם" (the Hebrew meaning of righteous gentiles) or read Seven_Laws_of_Noah

Help with English needed
I saw this because of a related change to a template on my watchlist. Moved to Talk to try and help.
 * Gezel HaGer
 * One of the Twenty-four kohanic gifts, gezel hager is paid in the event the ger passes on without issue. Thereby, the possessor of the ger's property is obligated by mitzvah to pay the amount to the kohen. This mitvah is listed as one of the ten kohanic gifts applicable even outside the Land of Israel.

The English on this article as it stands is in good English, if it is to have a paragraph like this it would need cleaning up to the same standard as the rest of the article. And a WP:RS source. And checking that the language and spelling used in the paragraph is the same as other WP articles and more importantly as mainstream sources. See WP:UE, also where use of foreign language terms in italics is appropriate, the ideally foreign term ("meaning in English") would be helpful to general readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision by Proxy (Circumcision for the Dead)
A mohel named Schochet Tzodex performed a circumcision for a dead man. Is there any precedence for Circumcision by Proxy, or any halaka or talmudic justification for the practice? Should this be mentioned in the article on circumcision? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC) [source: http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/joseph-smith-moron-founder-has-foreskin-flayed-in-proxy-circumcis] funny and a good find. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Conversion
This     'Conversion to Judaism (Hebrew: גיור, giyur) is a formal act undertaken by a non-Jewish person who wishes to be recognised as a full member of the Jewish community'   should really say a full member of a Jewish community. (Change in bold). Since not all branches of Judaism recognise conversions carried out by other branches, then it is not correct to imply that an individual convert will be accepted by all religious Jews as Jewish. Any comments before I make this change?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to Humanistic Judaism
This   'A Jewish conversion is both a religious act and an expression of association with the Jewish people.' is not correct. Rather it should say that A Jewish conversion is normally a religious act and always an expression of association with the Jewish people, (change in bold.)  Since it is possible to convert to Humanistic Judaism which requires no statement of an individual's religous belief, this change should be made. I will then add a section on the requirements for an individual to convert to HJ. Please do not bother telling me that HJ are small in numbers, that is irrelevant. Nor is it relevant that their conversions are not accepted by some other branches of Judaism, as this applies to lots of branches of Judaism. Indeed the biggest branch of Judaism is probably Jews who are not Jews according to some other Jews.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

 * A section on conversion to HJ sounds interesting. But I have a question, where is the demarcation between HJ and those G-d Fearers who accept most of Judaism except for circumcision? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ger
Whilst undoubtedly true this section

This mistranslation has had profound effects on the status of converts to Judaism even today in the English speaking Jewish world.

Marc Angel writes:

"The Hebrew ger (in post-Biblical times translated as "proselyte") literally means "stranger" and refers to a non-Israelite who lived among the Israelite community. When the Torah commands compassion and equal justice for the ger, it is referring to these "strangers." But Rabbinic tradition interpreted the word ger as also referring to proselytes..."[10] Angel's explanation of the literal meaning of "ger" as alien is borne out in biblical verses such as Lev 19:34:

As a citizen among you shall be the ger (the resident) who lives among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were gerim in the land of Egypt—I am the Lord your God. As Jews were not converts in Egypt, but rather residents, the verse is an indication that the meaning of ger is "resident". There is no place in the Hebrew Bible where the term "ger" is clearly used to refer to a convert to Judaism. The closest thing in the Hebrew Bible to a conversion process is the circumcision undergone by the male stranger ("ger") before eating the Passover offering (Exodus 12:48). Another passage which may be relevant to a process of conversion involves non-Jewish women captured in war who could be adopted forcibly as wives (Deuteronomy 21:10–14).

is not relevant to conversion to judaism. There is too much information here, and it is not relevant. it may belong in an article about the status of converts, but not here.109.145.12.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I realize that this is a six-year-old comment, but with respect, the editor making it errs in one regard. He states, "There is no place in the Hebrew Bible where the term "ger" is clearly used to refer to a convert to Judaism." This is not entirely accurate. In Leviticus 19:34, the Septuagint translators clearly use the word προσήλυτος or proselytos as the translation for the word ger, indicating that they understood that the meaning of the Greek word was related to the Hebrew word. The English proselyte is a transliteration from the Greek. 47.138.93.197 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Active proselytizing in the past
The Wikipedia article about Tiberius claims that during the emperors reign around 17 AD, Jews were actively trying to convert Romans, an act which made him suspicious. Is this true, and if so, when did this practice stop (since Jews no longer actively proselytize, as this article states)? LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

POV
Declaration that all "mainstream" divisions of Judaism accept conversion is both false and offensive. Especially since the largest Jewish organization in the world refuses converts. There is infact an officially Jewish state called Israel which gives rights based on being Jewish that does not recognize conversion as legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible NY Times summary of contemporary "Conversion" issues and interpretations
"Conversions of Children Spur Debate Over Who Controls Jewish Law in Israel"

I leave this source for myself and for anyone else who sees how to use this New York Times summary within the context of the already worthy explanations on this Wikipedia page. Rednblu (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://huc.edu/news/08/8/A%20Tragic%20Annulment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216071447/http://www.jewishpress.com:80/displayContent_new.cfm?mode=a&sectionid=58&contentid=13089&contentName=Daf+Yomi to http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?mode=a&sectionid=58&contentid=13089&contentName=Daf+Yomi
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927160936/http://www.kulanu.org/anousim/index.html to http://www.kulanu.org/anousim/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527181434/http://www.huc.edu/news/08/8/A%20Tragic%20Annulment.pdf to http://huc.edu/news/08/8/A%20Tragic%20Annulment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324035026/http://www.cwj.org.il/press/rivka-ynet-articles/cancelled-conversion to http://www.cwj.org.il/press/rivka-ynet-articles/cancelled-conversion
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216072124/http://www-english.tamu.edu:80/pers/fac/myers/lindemann_debate.html to http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/lindemann_debate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006005206/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Attitudes_TO/NJ_Proselytes.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Attitudes_TO/NJ_Proselytes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011151023/http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103393.html to http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/103393.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527163941/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/law/conversion_resources.html to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/law/conversion_resources.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20051018001058/http://urj.org/outreach/conversion/qa/ to http://urj.org/outreach/conversion/qa/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conversion to Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304114546/http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=840313&ct=1051515 to http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=840313&ct=1051515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Bnei Anusim section
Just a heads-up to those who watch this article...I edited the Bnei Anusim to combine paragraphs 3 and 4, since they largely were duplications of each other. Feel free to reverse this edit if you have strong objections. I also added a citation needed tag, as there are numerical claims being made about this subgroup, claims that really should have a reliable source cited per Wikipedia standards. 47.138.93.197 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

jewish conversions in the United States as related to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution
We need to address the fact that under 1st amendment law in the U.S., anyone may convert to judaism without needing to fulfill any requirements. Whether a U.S. residents conversion/adoption of Judaism is recognize by established Judaist denominations varies of course. More conservative jewish denominations would consider there to be a key distinction between a mere practitioner of Judaism vs a true convert. While U.S. constitutional law may recognize anyone's ability to identify as a practitioner of Judaism, conservative and orthodox jews would not consider them "converts", a distinction not considered relevant under the 1st amendment, accept in so far as it relates to whether a particular Jewish denomination/synagogue/organization chooses to recognize a person seeking membership as validly jewish, for their purposes, since these groups have the "right of free association". --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have a section dealing with the general inapplicability of constitutional law to private law within United States law. Creating such a section would then require similar sections dealing with the constitutional/private law interactions in all major legal systems. This would not be relevant to the broader topic and would be off-topic. Île flottante (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Jewish News on the politics of conversion
Doug Weller talk 18:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Converts
The article currently states that "Converts can become rabbis" but the examples that it gives are of decedents of converts rather than converts themselves. Specifically the part that says "For instance, Rabbi Meir Baal Ha Nes is thought to be a descendant of a proselyte. Rabbi Akiva was also a very well known son of converts." and "In fact, King David is descended from Ruth, a convert to Judaism". It also mentions "The Talmud lists many of the Jewish nation's greatest leaders who had either descended from or were themselves converts.", so maybe it would be a good idea to mention said "Jewish nation's greatest leaders" that "were themselves converts" in that specific paragraph.

I think that it makes sense to mention famous decedents of converts but it should probably be done in another paragraph for clarity. Linuxuser9876 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conversion to Judaism


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++/Syntax highlighting

It would be nice to make full use of HTML's facility with text formatting in code samples. Following are proposals for syntax highlighting.

Standard colors
While the usual white or off-white background is reasonably well suited for plain encyclopedic text, it's poor at providing the contrast needed to easily distinguish color. Thus, colored text should preferably be placed on a dark background to allow a broad range of colors to be used. Note, however, that pure blue is less visible against black than against white.

The default colors are proposed to be as follows (it will of course be possible to override them with style sheets):

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Category:New Zealand squash players

title: Category:New Zealand squash players


text:
Shanballymore

Shanballymore (, colloquially Shanbla) is a small village in County Cork, Ireland. It neighbours the towns of Doneraile, Kildorrery and Castletownroche, and is off the main route from Mallow to Mitchelstown. Shanballymore is part of the Cork East Dáil constituency.

The village has a pub "The Corner House", a school and a Catholic church. The church is dedicated to Christ the King. Shanballymore GAA is the local GAA club.

The village had a population of 165 people as of the 2016 census.

History
Shanballymore, also historically referred to as Templeruan – Sonnachgowan (old town), is situated on the North bank of the Awbeg River – Spenser's 'Mulla Fair' – astride the road from Mallow to Mitchelstown. It is also traversed by the 'Bianconi Road' .This is the old road which crosses Wallstown Hill over the river and Clogher Hill, the cobbled surface of which can still be seen in a few places. The modern 'New Line' was built as a public work around the hills during one of the famines in the 19th century.

Of the variant names of Shanballymore, the earliest, Sonnach Gobunn, appears in the Críchad an Chaoilli (c. 1100) and the Papal Taxation of Pope Nicholas of 1291. The second name, Templeroan, makes its appearance as an alternative name about 1400 and remains as the name of the Civil (legal) or Church of Ireland parish. Census figures and other official information for the parish are found under this second title. The third and most recent name, Shanballymore, is the name of the Roman Catholic parish.

Within the area are four tower houses or castles, including at Ballinamona, Sonnach (or Shannagh), Castleruan and Dannanstown, and three churches, Kilelly, kilclagmusey & Templeroan. There is also a reference to a Shanballymore Castle, but that would appear to be in error for Castleruahn.

The vicinity of Shanballymore was part of the tuath (area of control) of Ui Bece Abha Uachtarach with Castletownroche and Wallstown parishes, as shown in the Críchad_an_Chaoilli, a description of the area now known as the Barony of Fermoy. The text appears in The Book of Lismore (more correctly the book of Mac carthaigh Riabhach, which was found in the early 19th century, hidden in the walls of Lismore Castle). The Crichad portion of the text provides a description of Irish land holding c. 1100, the limits of the estates and the major families of the area. It was edited and translated on three occasions, first in Patrick, Cardinal Moran's editing of Mervyn Archdall's Monasticon Hibernicus, 1873; second by J. G. O'Keeffe in the scholarly journal Eriu in 1928; and third in Patrick Power's publication of 1932.

The parish is represented in the crichad by the 'bailies' of Sonnach Gobann and cluain Lochluinn and the main family were the Hi Gobunn. This is possibly the family who gave their to Ballygowan in Killavullen Parish. Sonnach remains in the townland of Shannagh.

The parish was valued in the papal taxation of Pope Nicholas in 1291 at 5 marks (2 old pounds 13 shillings and 4 pence) and taxed at a tithe or tenth. It is not mentioned in the pipe Roll of Cloyne (c. 1370). it appears from other documents of the period and later, to have been united with Wallstown & Ballygrigan parishes rather than Doneraile.

In 1821 the population of the Parish was 1,413 people, 668 males and 745 females divided into 253 families and living in 236 houses. 413 were unemployed. In 1831 1,788 and in 1941 1802 people 564 males and 590 females, in these years the village population rose from 199 in 1821, to 415 in 80 houses in 1831, and in 1841, some 471 people in 89 houses (mostly thatched) and 392 in 1851.

In 1821 there were 164 boys and 54 girls in school in the parish. In 1826 there were 2 schools in Shanballymore and Ballyhourode, where Matthew Reardon taught 32 boys and 18 girls, all Roman Catholics in a wretched hovel which beggars description and the other in Shanballymore where James Riall was Master to either 122 or 100 pupils in a sonte and mud thatched house. The primary valuation of 1851 listed Patrick O'Keefe as the National Teacher in Shanballymore.

"Shanballymore" was also the name of the winner of the Irish Derby Stakes in 1911, but the horse had no connection to the village in County Cork, as it refers to a townland of Donohill, Tipperary.

Ballinamona
One of the townlands in the area is Ballinamona ("The town of the bog"). In this townland are the remains of a Nagle Castle – one of the many in Shanballymore, Annikisha and Killavullen. Those still showing above ground are Monanimy, Carrigacunna and Ballinamona. Annakisha has disappeared completely. The Nagles were a Norman family of considerable strength almost from their arrival in Ireland; Sir Richard Nagle of Clogher was Solicitor General for Ireland under James II and was one of the most influential members of the "Patriot Parliament" of 1689. Also descended from the Nagle family was Nano Nagle, foundress of the presentation Convent Order, from whom some people of Shanballymore received their education in nearby Doneraile.

One part of the Nagle Castle, no longer to be seen, is a Sheela na gig which was found built into the wall and later destroyed. Sheela na gig reliefs, often carved in stone and set into castle and church walls to "ward off evil", take the form of figurative carvings of naked women displaying an exaggerated vulva. Legend has it that Garret Nagle of Ballinamona was in London for the coronation of King George IV, when his workmen found the carving in the castle. Being upset by the lewd figure, they broke it. They reputedly also broke the 'luck', as shortly afterwards Nagle had to sell the castle and lands to cover his debts.

Townlands in Shanballymore
The electoral division of Shanballymore, which shares its name with the village, contains 20 townlands. These include: Ballinamona - Ballydoyle - Ballyguyroe - Ballyhourode - Ballywalter - Carriganuroe - Carrigleagh - Cliadh Dubh - Clogher - Commons - Clustogue & Kilconnors - Dannanstown - Graig - Graig upper - Oldtown - Parksouth - Pike - Pouleagh - Castle Ruane - Shanagh - Shanballymore - Templeruan - Waterdyke.

title: Shanballymore


text:
Allan Carr

Allan Carr (born Allan Solomon; May 27, 1937 – June 29, 1999) was an American producer and manager of stage for the screen. He was nominated for numerous awards, winning a Tony Award and two People's Choice Awards, and was named Producer of the Year by the National Association of Theatre Owners.

Early career
Carr was born Allan Solomon to an American Jewish family in Chicago, Illinois. He attended Lake Forest College and Northwestern University, but his interest was always in show business. While at Northwestern, he invested $750 in the Broadway musical Ziegfeld Follies starring Tallulah Bankhead. Though the show was not a hit, he had also invested $1,250 in 1967 film The Happiest Millionaire, which gave him the success he needed to leave school and embark upon a career in entertainment.

In Chicago in the 1960s, he opened the Civic Theater and financed The World of Carl Sandburg starring Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, as well as Eva Le Gallienne in Mary Stuart, directed by Sir Tyrone Guthrie, and Tennessee Williams's Garden District, featuring Cathleen Nesbitt and Diana Barrymore. Carr worked behind the scenes at Playboy with Hugh Hefner and was a co-creator of the Playboy Penthouse television series, which in turn launched the Playboy Club.

Through the years, he became known as a great planner of promotional events and parties. One such event, a black-tie affair for Truman Capote, took place in an abandoned Los Angeles jail.

Management career
In 1966, Carr founded the talent agency Allan Carr Enterprises, managing the actors Tony Curtis, Peter Sellers, Rosalind Russell, Dyan Cannon, Melina Mercouri, and Marlo Thomas. Some of the other entertainment figures whose careers he managed were Ann-Margret, a string of whose television specials he also produced: Nancy Walker, Marvin Hamlisch, Joan Rivers, Peggy Lee, Cass Elliot, Paul Anka, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, George Maharis and Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass.

Carr was responsible for the invention of the false and much-derided story that Cass Elliot died by choking on a ham sandwich. In 2020, journalist Sue Cameron admitted that she promulgated the story at Carr's request by writing it into Elliot's obituary for The Hollywood Reporter; Carr decided that the humiliating falsehood was preferable to the implication that Elliot's heart attack was associated with substance abuse.

Carr is also credited for having discovered numerous celebrities, including some who also became his clients, such as Mark Hamill, Michelle Pfeiffer, Steve Guttenberg and Lisa Hartman.

Grease and Broadway success
Producer Robert Stigwood hired him in 1975 as marketing and promotion consultant, with his first project being for the film version of the rock opera Tommy. The film was a hit and he expanded his involvement for his next film, re-editing and overdubbing a low-budget foreign film about a real-life disaster. The result was Survive! (The disaster in question was also described in Piers Paul Read's book Alive.) The surprise box office success of Survive! in 1976 made Carr a wealthy man and gave him clout at Paramount Pictures.

In 1977, Stigwood asked him to produce the ad campaign for Saturday Night Fever, and he turned the film's premiere into a star-studded television special. It worked so well that Stigwood gave him Grease (1978). Carr not only helmed the ad campaign and produced the premiere party and television special for Grease, but also co-produced the film for six million dollars, casting his then client Olivia Newton-John. It became the highest-grossing film of the year, and one of the highest-grossing films up until that time, at just under $100 million. The film was nominated for five Golden Globe Awards and won two People's Choice Awards, for Best Picture and Best Musical Picture. That year he even appeared in a role on the final season of the Angie Dickinson television series Police Woman. Stigwood and Carr would work on several other films, including 1978 Oscar-winning The Deer Hunter.

The following year, 1979, he produced the Village People film musical Can't Stop The Music, a production which, while campy, steered clear of addressing the band members' presumed homosexuality in the script. Again he orchestrated a lavish series of premieres and a television special that co-starred his friends Hefner and Cher. But the film was released in 1980, after the crash of the disco craze, and as a result, it was a major flop. Because of this, Carr "won" the first annual Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture in 1981. Undaunted, he went on to produce Grease 2 (1982) which, while nowhere near the hit of its predecessor, was not the financial loss that Can't Stop The Music had been.

When Carr was in Paris for the premiere of Grease, a friend took him to see a play about a gay couple, La Cage aux Folles. By this time in his career, Carr was ready to face the gay theme head on. Returning to Broadway he produced a musical version of the 1973 play, which had since been made into a French film, and would later be remade as an American film called The Birdcage. With a book by Harvey Fierstein and music and lyrics by Jerry Herman, the show opened in 1983 and was a huge success, running for five years and 1,761 performances. Nominated in 1984 for eight Drama Desk Awards and eight Tony Awards, the show won three Drama Desks and an impressive six Tonys, including a "Best Musical" win for Carr.

Snow White and the Academy Awards
Carr's reputation for hosting expensive and lavish parties and creating spectacular production numbers led AMPAS to hire him to produce the 61st Academy Awards on March 29, 1989. Carr made a promise to shift the show from its perceived dry and dull stature to something different, one that would be inspired by Beach Blanket Babylon (created by Steve Silver), the musical revue show featuring Snow White during the Golden Age of Hollywood. Three time Academy Award winner Marvin Hamlisch was brought in as conductor. With the promise of being "the antithesis of tacky," for which the ceremony would have no host, as it would rotate actors and actresses instead generally put in pairs as part of Carr's theme of "couples, companions, costars, and compadres", with the most notable pair being Bob Hope and Lucille Ball (in her final public appearance before her death just a few weeks later). The criticism for the ceremony stemmed mostly from the musical numbers that attempted to cross both Old and New Hollywood together. It began with a booming voice stating that the "star of all time" would arrive soon, which came in the form of Snow White, played by Eileen Bowman (Lorna Luft declined, much to her subsequent relief), who proceeded to try and shake the hands of stars in the audience in the theater (much to the embarrassment of nominated actress Michelle Pfeiffer). Merv Griffin started the show with his 1950 hit “I’ve Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts!”, complete with a re-creation of the Cocoanut Grove nightclub that featured a collection of established stars such as Vincent Price, Alice Faye, and Roy Rogers. Bowman returned to the stage afterwards to sing a duet of "Proud Mary" with Rob Lowe, which lasted twelve minutes. A second production number was done later with "The Stars of Tomorrow" doing a number called "I Wanna Be An Oscar Winner" that featured actors in their teens/mid-20s such as Christian Slater (sword fighting Tyrone Power Jr.), Chad Lowe (shouting "I am a Thespian"), and Patrick Dempsey (tap dancing along the stairwell).

Steve Silver, asked about the opening number while looking at the reviews, stated, "Janet Maslin says it is the worst production number in the history of the Oscars. I guess you can't top that. The publicity for Beach Blanket Babylon ought to be wonderful.” An open letter was released on April 7, featuring 17 figures of Hollywood (such as former Academy president Gregory Peck) that called the ceremony an embarrassment to the Academy and the industry. Two days later, the Los Angeles Times dedicated its entire letter section (ten in total) to hate mail about the ceremony, titling it “For Some, the Oscar Show Was One Big Carr Crash." The Walt Disney Company sued the Academy shortly after the ceremony for copyright infringement (no one at the Academy had asked for permission from Disney regarding Snow White), which forced the Academy to make a formal apology. Lowe defended his appearance by describing himself as a "good soldier" doing it for the Academy, while Bowman would state later that the show looked like a "gay bar mitzvah", doing so years after the fact after having signed a gag order that had her not talk about the show for thirteen years. Carr's reputation in Hollywood did not fully recover from the blowback the ceremony received, although there were some retaining benefits. The ratings for the show were marginally better than the previous ceremony, as over 42 million viewers in 26 million homes saw the ceremony in the United States. The choice of no host for the ceremony would be replicated for the 2019 ceremony. Carr's decision to change the announcement from "And the winner is..." to "And the Oscar goes to.." has been utilized for each Academy ceremony since. Carr elected to have retailer Fred Hayman get designers to dress the stars for arrival on the red carpet, which became its own segment of focus in later years. Comedian Bruce Vilanch, hired as a writer for the show, would work on the show for the next two decades, which included a promotion to head writer. Carr did not produce another film or television show again.

Later work
That same year Carr helmed the project Goya: A Life in Song with Freddie Gershon and CBS Records, a concept album and, later, an off-Broadway musical theater production written by Maury Yeston (Nine) and featuring Plácido Domingo as artist Francisco Goya. Still in development for a full Broadway production, the music has been recorded by Domingo with Dionne Warwick in English and Gloria Estefan in Spanish, and a version of the duet "Till I Loved You" was a top-40 single for Barbra Streisand and Don Johnson.

Carr continued his work in theater, sponsoring the 1984-85 Royal Shakespeare Company productions of Cyrano de Bergerac and Much Ado About Nothing at Washington's Kennedy Center and Broadway's Gershwin Theatre, earning 10 Tony nominations between them including one more for Carr. Carr had returned to Paramount Pictures to handle the re-release of Grease in 1998, which included producing a VH1 television special of the twentieth anniversary Hollywood "premiere" screening and party, and special edition re-releases of the video, DVD, and soundtrack album.

Production filmography
Carr was a producer of numerous movies, including:
 * The First Time (1969)
 * C.C. and Company (1970)
 * Grease (1978)
 * Can't Stop the Music (1980)
 * Grease 2 (1982)
 * Where the Boys Are '84 (1984)
 * Cloak & Dagger (1984)

Personal life and death
Carr died on June 29, 1999, in Beverly Hills, California. His ashes were scattered in front of his former Diamond Head house on Oahu by Ann-Margret, her husband Roger Smith, and Martin Menard. Carr died from liver cancer. At the time of his death, he split his time between his homes in Beverly Hills and Palm Springs, and was working on bringing Ken Ludwig's Tony-winning comedy Lend Me a Tenor to Australia and the UK, and was preparing a new Broadway show, The New Musical Adventures of Tom Sawyer.

In 2017, a documentary about Carr's life was released entitled The Fabulous Allan Carr. The film's director, Jeffrey Schwarz, said, "Although it was no secret that Allan Carr was gay, he never formally acknowledged it publicly. The word 'flamboyant' was used to describe him, a code word."

title: Allan Carr


text:
Directly observed treatment, short-course

Directly observed treatment, short-course (DOTS, also known as TB-DOTS) is the name given to the tuberculosis (TB) control strategy recommended by the World Health Organization. According to WHO, "The most cost-effective way to stop the spread of TB in communities with a high incidence is by curing it. The best curative method for TB is known as DOTS." DOTS has five main components:
 * Government commitment (including political will at all levels, and establishment of a centralized and prioritized system of TB monitoring, recording and training)
 * Case detection by sputum smear microscopy
 * Standardized treatment regimen directly of six to nine months observed by a healthcare worker or community health worker for at least the first two months
 * Drug supply
 * A standardized recording and reporting system that allows assessment of treatment results

History
The technical strategy for DOTS was developed by Karel Styblo of the International Union Against TB & Lung Disease in the 1970s and 80s, primarily in Tanzania, but also in Malawi, Nicaragua and Mozambique. Styblo refined "a treatment system of checks and balances that provided high cure rates at a cost affordable for most developing countries." This increased the proportion of people cured of TB from 40% to nearly 80%, costing up to $10 per life saved and $3 per new infection avoided.

In 2007, WHO and the World Bank began investigating the potential expansion of this strategy. In July 2008, the World Bank invited Styblo and WHO to design a TB control project for China. By the end of 2007 this pilot project was achieving phenomenal results, more than doubling cure rates among TB patients. China soon extended this project to cover half the country.

During the early 1990s, WHO determined that of the nearly 700 different tasks involved in Styblo's meticulous system, only 100 of them were essential to run an effective TB control program. From this, WHO's relatively small TB unit at that time, led by Arata Kochi, developed an even more concise "Framework for TB Control" focusing on five main elements and nine key operations. The initial emphasis was on "DOT, or directly observed therapy, using a specific combination of TB medicines known as short-course chemotherapy as one of the five essential elements for controlling TB. In 1993, the World Bank's Word Development Report claimed that the TB control strategies used in DOTS were one of the most cost-effective public health investments.

In the Fall of 1994, Kraig Klaudt, WHO's TB Advocacy Officer, developed the name and concept for a marketing strategy to brand this complex public health intervention. To help market "DOTS" to global and national decision makers, turning the word "dots" upside down to spell "stop" proved a memorable shorthand that promoted "Stop TB. Use Dots!"

According to POZ Magazine, "You know the worldwide epidemic of TB is entering a critical stage when the cash-strapped World Health Organization spends a fortune on glossy paper, morbid photos and an interactive, spinning (!) cover for its 1995 TB report." India's Joint Effort to Eradicate TB NGO observed that, "DOTS became a clarion call for TB control programmes around the world. Because of its novelty, this health intervention quickly captured the attention of even those outside of the international health community."

The DOTS report was released to the public on March 20, 1995, at New York City's Health Department. At the news conference, Tom Frieden, head of the city's Bureau of TB Control captured the essence of DOTS, "TB control is basically a management problem." Frieden had been credited for using the strategy to turn around New York City's TB outbreak a few years earlier.

On March 19, 1997, at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany, WHO announced that "DOTS was the biggest health breakthrough of the decade." According to WHO Director-General Hiroshi Nakajima, "We anticipate that at least 10 million deaths from TB will be prevented in the next ten years with the introduction and extensive use of the DOTS strategy." Upon Nakajima's death in 2013, WHO recognized that the promotion of DOTS was one of WHO's most successful programs developed during his ten-year administration.

Impact
There has been a steady uptake of DOTS TB control services over the subsequent decades. Whereas previously less than 2% of infectious TB patients were being detected and cured, with DOTS treatment services in 1990 approximately 60% have been benefitted from this care. Since 1995, 41 million people have been successfully treated and up to 6 million lives saved through DOTS and the Stop TB Strategy. 5.8 million TB cases were notified through DOTS programs in 2009.

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials found no difference for cure rates as well as the treatment completion rates between directly observed therapy (DOT) and self-administered drug therapy. A 2013 meta-analysis of both clinical trials and observational studies too did not find any difference between DOTS and self-administered therapy. However, the WHO and all other TB programs continue to use DOTS as an important strategy for TB delivery for fear of drug resistance.

DOTS-Plus is for multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB).


text:
User:TOR

{| My name is Lucas Garczewski, I'm 21 and live in Poznań, Poland.
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 12pt; background-color: #ffffff" colspan="2" |

I am a 2nd year student of ethnolinguistics at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

I have used Wikipedia as a source of information for some time now, and finally felt it was time to contribute to it's further development. Which I have been doing since February 2004. I am also an active contributor to the polish Wikipedia and a a few other Wikimedia projects.

I am a member of the Wikimedia community. I am not afraid to dream of a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 6pt 6pt; width: 100%; background-color: #ffffff" colspan="2" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 6pt 6pt; width: 100%; background-color: #ffffff" colspan="2" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

About this page
Yes, this is my user page. But since this is a wiki, you can boldly edit it. I trust that you'll try to make it even more reindeery and simly cooler. And that you'll respect the way it's organized.

You may also want to add new items to my current tasks list, if you think I can help or should look into something. Remember to leave a short description (on the list or at my talk page, too. I am a busy reindeer so please do not use this "feature" too lightly.

No reindeer was hurt in the creation of this user page.
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

Beliefs
This list is meant to help others track possible NPOV breaches in my edits.
 * I am a liberal
 * I am a deist
 * I am an anti-clericalist
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

Current tasks
{| style="width: 100%; padding: 0 12pt 0 0; background-color: #ffffff"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top" |

Articles

 * [Edit]
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top" |

Projects

 * [Edit]
 * }
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 0 12pt 12pt; width: 35%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

Contact
You can reach me through:
 * my talk page
 * e-mail: [mailto:lgarczewski@gmail.com]
 * IRC: #wikipedia-pl

Other Wikimedia projects
Apart from the English Wikipedia, I am also active at:
 * Polish Wikipedia
 * Polish Wikiquote
 * Commons
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; width: 65%; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

Articles

 * [Edit]
 * style="border: 1px solid #cccccc; padding: 6pt 1px 12pt 12pt; vertical-align: top; background-color: #ffffff" |

General

 * Polish Wikipedians' notice board
 * Translation of the week

Personal

 * Edit counter
 * Sandbox
 * JavaScript
 * CSS
 * }

pl:User:TOR

title: User:TOR


text: Category:English squash players

title: Category:English squash players


text:
Eriya Kategaya

Eriya Kategaya (4 July 1945 – 2 March 2013) was a Ugandan lawyer and politician. At the time of his death he was Uganda's First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for East African Community Affairs. He was also an ex officio Member of the Ugandan Parliament, on account of being a cabinet minister.

Background
Kategaya was born on 4 July 1943 in Karagwe Itojo, Ntungamo District, in Western Uganda. He was a longtime associate of President Yoweri Museveni. They had studied together at Mbarara High School and later at Ntare School from 1961 to 1966. Kategaya and Museveni also attended the University of Dar es Salaam at the same time.

Education
Kategaya held a Bachelor of Laws (LLB), degree from the University of Dar-es-Salaam. At the time of his graduation the university was part of the University of East Africa.

Military and political training
Kategaya was part of Museveni's Front for National Salvation (FRONASA), a group of Ugandan exiles in Tanzania who eventually helped topple Idi Amin in 1979 with the help of the Tanzania People's Defence Force. In 1980, he was a founder of the Uganda Patriotic Movement, headed by Museveni to contest in the elections. When Museveni launched the guerrilla struggle against the Milton Obote II administration (1981 - 1985), Kategaya served in the 'External Wing' of the rebel National Resistance Movement (NRM) and National Resistance Army (NRA). The NRM transformed into the National Resistance Movement political party, while the NRA became the Uganda People's Defence Force (UPDF). He was a Brigadier General in the National Resistance Army from 1987 holding army number RO-002 although he never served in any military position as he was all the time serving in other government offices as a senior cabinet minister.

Political career
When the NRM and NRA eventually took power in January 1986, Kategaya was one of the groups' top leadership and considered by most as the Number Two after Museveni. Between 1986 and 2001, Kategaya served in various capacities as National Political Commissar for the NRM and Minister in Museveni's governments.

During Museveni's second term as elected President (2001 - 2006), Kategaya, then serving as Internal Affairs Minister, famously fell out with the President when he opposed moves to have the Constitution amended to remove presidential term limits. In May 2003, he was dropped from his ministerial position during a Cabinet reshuffle, along with other ministers who opposed the removal of term limits. Kategaya continued to speak out against amending the term limits provision until eventually the heavily pro-Museveni Parliament pushed the amendment through.

From the time he was dropped from the Cabinet, Kategaya returned to practice as a private lawyer with J.B.Byamugisha Advocates, a law firm based in Kampala.

In December 2004, he participated in the formation of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) an anti-Museveni coalition which went on to become the main opposition group in Uganda after the 2006 general elections. Kategaya, however, maintained a low profile and rarely participated in FDC affairs.

Following Museveni and NRM's win in the 2006 general elections, rumours began spreading that Kategaya was in reconciliation talks with Museveni. The rumours proved well-founded when Museveni nominated his old ally for approval by the Parliament as a Cabinet Minister. Subsequently, he was appointed to the posts of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for East African Community Affairs. Kategaya has been instrumental in the continued growth of the East African Community.

In the cabinet reshuffle of 27 May 2011, Eriya Kategaya maintained all his cabinet posts.

Eriya Kategaya died on 2 March 2013 in Nairobi, where he had been hospitalised for a while.

title: Eriya Kategaya


text:
Manto Tshabalala-Msimang

Mantombazana "Manto" Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang OMSS (née Mali; 9 October 1940 – 16 December 2009) was a South African politician. She was Deputy Minister of Justice from 1996 to 1999 and served as Minister of Health from 1999 to 2008 under President Thabo Mbeki. She also served as Minister in the Presidency under President Kgalema Motlanthe from September 2008 to May 2009.

Her emphasis on treating South Africa's AIDS epidemic with easily accessible vegetables such as African potato, garlic and beetroot, rather than with antiretroviral medicines, was the subject of local and international criticism. These policies led to the deaths of over 300,000 infected South Africans.

Education
Born as Mantombazana Edmie Mali in Durban, Tshabalala-Msimang graduated from Fort Hare University in 1961. As one of a number of young African National Congress cadres sent into exile for education, she received medical training at the First Leningrad Medical Institute in the Soviet Union from 1962 to 1969. She then trained as a registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology in Tanzania, finishing there in 1972. In 1980 she received a master's in public health from the University of Antwerp in Belgium.

She was an official within the exiled ANC leadership in Tanzania and Zambia during the latter decade of apartheid, with job responsibilities focused on the health and well-being of ANC militants there.

AIDS policies
Tshabalala-Msimang's administration as Minister of Health was controversial, because of her reluctance to adopt a public sector plan for treating AIDS with anti-retroviral medicines (ARVs). When interviewed by Radio 702 presenter John Robbie in 2000, Tshabalala-Msimang refused to say whether she believed HIV caused AIDS. She was called Dr. Beetroot for promoting the benefits of beetroot, garlic, lemons, and African potatoes as well as good general nutrition, while referring to possible toxicities of AIDS medicines. She was widely seen as following an AIDS policy in line with the ideas of South African President Thabo Mbeki, who for a time publicly expressed doubts about whether HIV caused AIDS.

In 2002, the South African Cabinet affirmed the policy that "HIV causes AIDS" which as an official statement silenced any further speculation on this topic by Cabinet members, including the President. In August 2003, the cabinet also voted to make anti-retrovirals available in the public sector, and instructed Tshabalala-Msimang to carry out the policy.

The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and its founder Zackie Achmat often targeted the minister for criticism, accusing the government and the Ministry of Health in particular of an inadequate response to the AIDS epidemic. The TAC led a campaign calling for her resignation or dismissal.

The TAC accused Tshabalala-Msimang of being aligned with Matthias Rath, a German physician and vitamin entrepreneur, who had charges laid against him for discouraging the use of ARVs.

Tshabalala-Msimang placed her emphasis on broad public health goals, seeing AIDS as only one aspect of that effort and one which, because of the incurable nature of HIV and financial costs of HIV treatment, might impede broader efforts to improve public health. A report making the case that AIDS is such a burden on the public health system that treating it would actually free up costs was sent back for clarification and not released in the summer of 2003, until it was obtained and leaked by TAC. After the cabinet vote to accept the findings of this report, Tshabalala-Msimang was in charge of the ARV roll-out, but continued to emphasise the importance of nutrition in AIDS and to urge others to see AIDS as only one problem among many in South African health.

A case that attracted much public attention was Nozipho Bhengu, daughter of an African National Congress legislator, who rejected anti-retroviral treatments for AIDS in favour of Tshabalala-Msimang's garlic and lemon diet. The minister declined to attend her funeral, and her stand-in was booed off the podium.

In February 2005, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) criticised the health department for their failure to ensure that most of the 30 million rand used to establish the government's AIDS trust in 2002 had been spent. They said only R520,000 of this money was used and of this a large portion had been squandered on unoccupied offices for the SANAC secretariat, something that drew criticism from the auditor-general.

In August 2006, at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for AIDS in Africa, closed the conference with a sharp critique of South Africa's government. He said South Africa promoted a "lunatic fringe" attitude toward HIV and AIDS, describing the government as "obtuse, dilatory, and negligent about rolling out treatment". After the conference, sixty-five of the world's leading HIV/AIDS scientists (most of them were attending the conference) asked in a letter that Thabo Mbeki dismiss Tshabalala-Msimang.

Traditional medicines
At a meeting with traditional healers to discuss future legislation in February 2008, Tshabalala-Msimang argued that traditional remedies should not become "bogged down" in clinical trials, also saying, "We cannot use Western models of protocols for research and development".

In September 2008, Tshabalala-Msimang called for greater protection of the intellectual rights of Africa's traditional medicines. Speaking at the 6th commemoration of The African Traditional Medicine Day in Cameroon's capital of Yaoundé, she said that the continent should benefit more from its ancient traditional knowledge.

Personal
Tshabalala-Msimang married her first husband, Mandla Tshabalala, while both were in exile in the Soviet Union. Later she married Mendi Msimang, the treasurer of the African National Congress.

Concern over Tshabalala-Msimang's health came to the fore in late 2006. She was admitted to the Johannesburg Hospital on 20 February 2007, suffering from anaemia and pleural effusion (an abnormal accumulation of fluid around the lungs). The Department of Health approached President Thabo Mbeki, and asked him to appoint an acting minister, and on 26 February Jeff Radebe was appointed acting health minister. On 14 March 2007, Tshabalala-Msimang underwent a liver transplant. The stated cause was autoimmune hepatitis with portal hypertension, but the transplant was surrounded by accusations of heavy drinking. She subsequently recovered her health and returned to her Ministerial duties until her replacement as health minister in 2008.

On 16 December 2009, she died due to complications related to her liver transplant.

Scandal
On 12 August 2007, four days after the controversial dismissal of her deputy minister, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, the Sunday Times ran an article titled "Manto's hospital booze binge" about a previous hospital stay in 2005 for a shoulder operation. The article alleged that she sent hospital workers out to fetch wine, whisky and food items, in one case at 1:30 am. Tshabalala-Msimang threatened legal action against the newspaper on the grounds that they were in possession of her medical records. The paper defended its statements, stating that "a retraction was not under consideration". The article also reported speculation among "many top medical experts at state and private institutions, who refused to be named as they feared retribution from the health ministry" that her liver condition was alcohol-induced, cirrhosis.

According to a Sunday Times article titled "Manto: A Drunk and a Thief" published on 19 August 2007, the minister was a convicted thief who had stolen patient items at a hospital in Botswana, and had been deported from Botswana and declared a prohibited immigrant.

ANC politics and replacement as Health Minister
With the endorsement of Jacob Zuma's supporters, Tshabalala-Msimang was re-elected to the ANC's 80-member National Executive Committee in December 2007 in 55th place, with 1,591 votes.

Mbeki was forced to resign by the ANC in September 2008. When his successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, took office on 25 September 2008, he moved Tshabalala-Msimang to the post of Minister in the Presidency, appointing Barbara Hogan to replace her as Minister of Health.

Tshabalala-Msimang was not included in the first Cabinet of President Jacob Zuma, announced on 10 May 2009.

Death
Tshabalala-Msimang died on 16 December 2009 at the Wits University Donald Gordon Medical Centre and Medi-Clinic ICU. Her doctor, Professor Jeff Wing, announced that she died due to complications arising from a liver transplant.

Political opponents and friends alike expressed shock at the announcement of her death:
 * The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) – "We don't wish ill on any human being even though we had a very difficult time with her as minister of health. We are sending our condolences to her family and children."
 * Helen Zille, leader of the Democratic Alliance – "We extend our sincere regrets to her family and loved ones. It is sad when anyone dies. Like many politicians she was controversial. However, that doesn't detract from the sadness of her death".
 * COSATU president Sidumo Dlamini – "This is shocking news. Somebody asked me yesterday what message we were going to send her in hospital and I said we hoped and wished her a speedy recovery. She made some mistakes by driving those policies but she was a human being. Her loss is a great loss. South Africa is losing a great leader of the ANC."

title: Manto Tshabalala-Msimang