Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 10

Homosexuality
The article says, "some branches, such as Orthodox Judaism, prohibit homosexual activity, although it does not exclude homosexual individuals." How can they prohibit homosexuality but not homosexuals? Is this really what the sources say? Is the entire ending of that particular sentence referring to orthodox Judaism, or is the qualifying bit referring to some other branch?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Homosexuals are allowed to be members of Orthodox Judaism, but they cannot engage in homosexual acts. By the way, that is the same policy as the Mormon church.   But you are right: that sentence should probably be re-worded to be clearer. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are heterosexuals required to be abstinent?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno, myself. I took the liberty of rewording that subsection, see if it's not clearer now. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul's criticism of Judaism
I put together a rough draft of a section treating Paul's criticism of Judaism. I reckon just sticking in a new section would cause a bruhaha, so I'm posting the link so folks can take a look and see if it warrants inclusion. Please note that all of the sources are academic works which use the phrase "criticism of Judaism", for whatever that may be worth. All feedback is welcome. -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed content looks like it is the result of some good research. A couple of comments:  (1) Probably should add a sentence (or perhaps merely a footnote) identifying which texts Paul's original comments/statements are located in (so readers could track them down);  (2) Need to think about which article is best for this content: Anti-Judaism or Criticism of Judaism (both are WP:Summary Style articles) ... the guideline has been that  criticisms of the nature "Judaism is wrong because it does not accept Jesus/Christianity" go into Anti-Judaism article; since some of Paul's criticism is of that nature, that content should go in that other article (but  other content that criticizes the precepts/doctrines of Judaism is appropriate for this article); (3) Since this is WP:Summary Style, consider some "see also" links such as Supersessionism, Rejection of Jesus, and Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.  --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A thought that occurs to me is that it goes somewhat against the current organization of the page to group criticisms by who the source was. Would it be possible instead to put these criticisms into existing sections of the page, instead of into a section of their own? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point - a similar issue exists with the several criticisms in the Criticism of Judaism, because several of those criticisms are also made by critics outside the reform movement.  The Criticism of Buddhism article has the same issue, because it is more-or-less organized by the source of the criticism (Marxists, Christians,etc), rather than the nature of the criticism (corruption,  inequality, etc).  In general, the articles seem better when they are organized by the nature of the criticism, not the source, primarily because most criticisms come from multiple sources.   --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could go in as a subsection to Doctrines and precepts, perhaps as Self-righteousness? Also, I've made some changes to take into account Neolander's comments regarding point 2, my goal is to see if it can find this article, so I've tried strip out the "Judaism is wrong because it does not accept Jesus/Christianity" issues. Please take a look and provide further guidance, and thanks. -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn — you make the point (at the beginning of this section) that, "all of the sources are academic works which use the phrase 'criticism of Judaism'". To be clear, the issue has not been the sourcing of the subtopics within this article. The issue has been the absence of a source establishing the overarching topic, "criticism of Judaism," of this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a specific policy? -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." What reliable source establishes "criticism of Judaism" as a topic? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I believe the topic Paul's criticism of Judaism has reliable sources. If you're opposed to the article in it's entirety, bring it up at WP:AFD. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, let me start by saying it's well written. My initial concerns here would be that --Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) as with most or all of the material currently in the article, it actually belongs elsewhere.
 * 2) only one of the sources is a University press. On the other hand two sources are published by Fortress Press, the publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and one by the Paulist Press (the Paulist Fathers). The concern here is that the sources might be more polemical than scholarly in nature.
 * Well, in regard to your first point, I do understand your position. But if we have an article titled "Criticism of Judaism", I think it's a reasonable argument that this should be here, since the sources reflect the title. Regarding your second point, what I said was they were academic sources, and I think theological research falls into that category. You are right, of course, that theological works might be considered polemic (using common usage, rather than the narrow definition), but I don't think these particular references are. Do you see any problems with a particular reference? -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One way to look at it is: There are two articles that are WP:Summary Style articles that summarize the criticisms of Judaism:  Anti-Judaism and Criticism of Judaism.  The former is for criticisms that relate to faith-based arguments (e.g. J. doesnt follow Islam or Christianity); the latter article is for all other criticisms.  Based on the latest draft of the proposed content, it looks like the proposed content probably belongs in Anti-Judaism, maybe in section Anti-Judaism.  Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point as well. A question, then, does anyone have an opinion about whether this should be an article on it's own? -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend starting with that, then adding material from Kant and Hegel. Then you could move on to Strauss, Feuerbach, and Bauer. You could even throw in some Marx. There's be plenty of scholarly material, on all sides of the discussion. Then, when finished, replace the contents of this article with whatever you've written. I'm not joking, you could easily turn that material into a Featured Article, as opposed to this mess, which (because of its inherent policy violating nature) can never be better than "C" class, and will therefore, no doubt, be put up for AfD on a regular basis. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a "Summary Style article", Noleander, this is an "Original Research article", into which is shoved any random negative statement editors can google up about about Jews or anything relating to them. The irony here is that Nuujinn's material is better written than any section currently in the article, and arguably more relevant than any of them too. If any of the current material belongs it's this, not what's currently in the article. If one wanted to actually start improving the article then one would jettison all the rest of it for this. But of course, that "if" is based on the premise that the intent here is to improve the article and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, I see the chances of this actually happening as nil. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, you may be right regarding the scholarly level of the sources; I haven't examined them in great detail. However, there can certainly be concern about perception here; Christian publishers providing at least half of these sources, here commenting on "Judaism". Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neolander, what parts of this suggested edit fit your conception of content "that criticizes the precepts/doctrines of Judaism" and are thus appropriate for this article? And Jayjg, could you expand your comment about perception? Surely everyone is used to the notion that non-Jews are sometimes critical of Judaism, and I can't imagine that you're suggesting that this article only include criticisms by Jews. -- Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who said anything about criticism by Jews? I wrote about scholarly sources, and mentioned the names of several non-Jewish critics. Wow, that certainly came out of left field. No, the concern here is that one not have the section become "Christian believers explaining why their religion is better than all the rest". Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, that makes perfect sense, and I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. -- Nuujinn (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn: the criticism that "Judaism was held to be fundamentally flawed by the sin of self-righteousness" probably belongs in Anti-Judaism;  on the other hand the criticism "it is a religion based in law instead of faith, and holds that salvation is possible through adherence to the law and performance of good works" could be appropriate for this article, but it needs additional secondary sources to document it.  Paths forward include:
 * Add content into Paul of Tarsus and Judaism
 * Add content into Anti-Judaism
 * Split the content: some into this article; some into one of the above articles
 * A new stand-alone article (but double-check Paul of Tarsus and Judaism first)
 * --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

bris
How can any rational person in today's society deny that circumcision without anesthetic is painful? There is plenty of evidence that it is! 76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the only (or most contentious) thing your edit claimed, is it? Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and who is the judge of this, what ever this thing is? God?  Please try to work others.  76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are the judge of this. Please review these fundamental content policies, which explain exactly what material is considered appropriate for Wikipedia articles, and how it must be written. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjig, I'd like to assume you are an intelligent man. I know your history and you I hate to say this but you do not work with other people.  Normally I'd say these are fair, but let's be honest, you know that this is not original research.  You know studies have been done to prove that its painful.  Yes, I can show you a source, but you aren't going to like it are you?  We know that its true, simply because history shows you that will not.  Do you actually deny that such studies have been done?  I don't understand why you want to hurt the validity of wikipedia by pretending that policies are the judge when there is evidence everywhere to show that will go out of your way to always interpret these policies how you like them.  Do you really deny that circumcision is painful?  Really?  I am asking you now, or do you think I'm really, really, really the first person who has every suggested this.  Really.  76.65.33.149 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Refusing to supply sources because of a preconceived notion of how it will be received is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've been asked for sources, please post them so others can view what you are using. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Barek, the disagreement does not seem to be with you. I think you are missing the point here.  Jayjig has not co-operated and has outright lied by claiming this person is using original research when in fact it is clear to everyone that this is not original research.  This is a violation of wikipedia policy involving assuming good faith.  I don't understand why jayjig did not get a temporary block as well as the edits he was reverting were not vandalism and certainly legitimate.  As for sources, I believe the sources already cited in the article include references to circumcision being painful and I doubt that Jayjig even read any of them.  Clearly he is not co-operating at all.  76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IP editor, just to be clear, and as I said already, you didn't just claim that circumcision was painful, but rather stated in Wikipedia's voice that it is "painful, cruel, genital mutilation". If anyone "outright lied", it would be the editor who repeatedly claimed the dispute here was merely about whether or not it is "painful". Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have degenerated into ad hominem attacks and it is not clear to me which part of the article was objectionable, to whom, and why. To me, criticism of circumcision would seem to be a notable topic for this article, but is the source a reputable source? BTW I think the circumcision section looks OK now, at least on a superficial glance. It just needs the opposite perspective (defenders/apologists for circumcision). The painfulness of circumcision, BTW, may be why it is performed on boys too young to remember, using wine as an "anesthetic." Judaism, BTW, is not unique in having body mutilation as part of initiation. Islam also mandates circumcision and the Maori people and a number of other groups traditionally required tattooing, a practice that is forbidden in Judaism. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  08:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the back-and-forth edits about this, and I agree with Jayjg and Barek. But it's not because I doubt that circumcision is painful (what I do or do not doubt does not matter anyway, per WP:OR), but rather, because I think it's more encyclopedic and more professional to use language that includes those qualifiers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The qualifier could be interpreted as an implication that the pain of circumcision is greatly disputed. This is simply not the case.  If anyone sincerely disputed the painfulness of it, it is certainly a minority view now, even to the extent of being oscure or antiquated in the medical profession.  I think that in this case the qualifiers are simply not appropriate although I agree they could be more encyclopedic in other circumstances.  Imagine if someone were to write in wikipedia some believe that Jews were killed by the Germans in WWII.  Would you think that would be more encyclopedic.  Obviously some claim it didn't happen, so by your logic, it would be appropriate.  76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * IP editor, as I said already, you didn't just claim that circumcision was painful, but rather stated in Wikipedia's voice that it is "painful, cruel, genital mutilation". But thank you for yet again proving Godwin's law. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, please give me a few days, and I'll try to track down a reliable reference from the medical literature about circumcision and pain. We'll see what that indicates, and then we can discuss how best to express it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See Circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good link, thanks! Wouldn't you know it, Wikipedia already has some good information about this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Please make sure that any sources used are specific "Criticism of Judaism", however, which is the topic of this article, rather than criticisms of circumcision, a rite practiced by many different religions, ethnicities, groups, and individuals. We need to avoid even more WP:SYNTH, which is already a huge problem in this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: the IP editor is claiming that the issue here is merely about whether or not circumcision is painful. However, his repeated edits actually changed (emphasis mine) "Judaism has been criticized for its practice of brit milah, a circumcision ritual performed on young boys, because the ritual is perceived as painful, cruel, tantamount to genital mutilation..." to "Judaism has been criticized for its practice of brit milah, a circumcision ritual performed on young boys, because the ritual is painful, cruel, genital mutilation..." Stating this in Wikipedia's voice is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. And his edits here and at Antisemitism were reverted by six different editors, a total of ten times. Of those ten reverts by six editors, I made exactly one, so his focus on me is similarly misleading. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical criticism is missing
Much of the criticism here seems rather petty. I think more fertile ground for objective criticism of Judaism can be found in: I'm not really sure how to approach writing this -- perhaps a new section on philosophical criticism? 137.254.4.8 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche's characterization of Judaism as a slave morality
 * Kant's argument in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason that Judaism isn't a religion at all, but a political entity (possible source)
 * I think Spinoza had some interesting criticism, too, but it escapes me at the moment.
 * IP: Yes, you are correct, the article is missing some of the more important philosophers.  It does include some Spinoza material, but perhaps that could be improved.   Other editors have suggested adding material on Kant ...   I think it was he (or another philosopher in his era) who criticized Judaism for being a "religion without morals", by which he meant (Im paraphrasing here) that Judaism focused too heavily on laws/rules/politics and not so much on morality (his judgement, not mine).  But I have not researched Kant at all, and I may be totally wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :-)  If you want to add a new "Philosophy" section based on Kant or Nietzsche, go ahead.  Make sure all the material you add is supported with high-quality sources (see WP:RS), and identify all your sources in footnotes.  Don't be too timid:  any mistakes you make can always be rectified. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'm going to have time to resume work on this article :-) Here are some more "philosophical" critics to consider at that time:
 * Karl Marx
 * Immanuel Kant
 * G.W.F Hegel
 * D.F.Strauus
 * Ludwig Feuerbach
 * Bruno Bauer
 * (above list from Antisemitism: Myth and Hate by Perry). --Noleander (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions applicable to this page
As a precaution, I would like to make all editors at this page aware of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander, which applies to all edits made to this page and talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no discretionary sanction in that case, as the arbitrators have clarified, and it's not clear that any would apply to this article even if there were. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As my link indicated, the section of the Arbitration decision to which I linked is called "Discretionary sanctions". As to what the Arbitrators clarified, I will refer readers to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. With respect to this page, my advice would be to steer clear of any content or comments that might appear to be of the form (quoting from Roger Davies' response) "Because Blue people are thieves, they looted and plundered after the battle in 1358" or "Because you are Blue, it's typical that you run to support other Blue people, no matter whether they're right or wrong", where the word "Blue" would be substituted with the word "Jewish". If you want to disagree with me about that, Jayjg, please feel free. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The arbitrators were very clear: "No discretionary sanctions were adopted in the Noleander case" (Newyorkbrad), "Noleander does not itself authorise discretionary sanctions" (Roger Davies), "Discretionary sanctions were not adopted in the Noleander case" (PhilKnight). If you want to disagree with the arbitrators, please feel free, but I don't think it will get you anywhere. Jayjg (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors would be well-advised to read what the Arbitrators actually say at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I've quoted. Now, please stop trying to intimidate editors, and focus on article content instead. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I suggest reading in full, instead of being misled by cherry-picked quotes. As for me trying to intimidate anyone, citation needed, and maybe a boomerang too. What's really ironic about all of this, is that I originally posted this thread to warn editors against putting up content that might appear to be a slur against Jewish people, and yet I appear to have touched a raw nerve with an editor who appears quite unlikely to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you all done talking about me? Please review WP:NPA and WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it is pretty clear that my opening post at the top of this thread was not directed at you. After that, you have been criticizing what I wrote, and I have responded. I felt that the message needed to be here, lest someone put something in the page that would further aggravate the concerns that have been raised. If anyone else, who never had any intention of doing so, thought that it was directed at them instead, they might want to ask themselves why they would have thought that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent reversion
I reverted Jayjg's reversion. Things have been quiet for a while now here, so let's not get rolling down a dramatic path, but rather discuss changes that are desired. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, things were "quiet for a while now here" until Alatari made his edit. I think you need to review WP:BRD. User:Alatari made a Bold edit, it was Reverted, and now we Discuss. Now, given the fact that the material included actually belongs in other articles, per the previous lengthy discussion and consensus, and given its suspicious nature, per the Nolander Arbcom case, what argument could you put forward for including it here? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. Jayjg, you made the bold edit of removing months of work by many editors other than Noleander in May.  I undid YOUR bold move and that's where we stand.  3 months intervening time is irrelevant.  Articles can be ignored for many weeks because that's the way thing sometimes work at Wikipedia.  It's not a paid job. So you were the bold editor and I restored months worth of work and consensus for discussion.  Alatari (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear, Alatari. Last May Steven J. Anderson reverted to the pre-Noleander version. Four months later you reverted to the Noleander version. So, you were the "Bold" editor, and I restored the consensus for discussion. Next time please make more accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There will be no improvement to this article simply by restoring Noleander's version, which was discussed and investigated at length. If an editor thinks that an important criticism is missing, bring it up on the talk page and we can discuss it one at a time.  It is important to be sure to represent reliable sources accurately and to avoid original research, and this requires care - care that Noleander lacked. Just going backwards is not going to take us anywhere. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that just going backwards will not help. There was some bold back and forth in may and some recently. Jayjg refers to prior consensus, but I see little consensus when I review the talk page discussion. What I am suggesting is that we discuss specific issues and deal with them, one at a time, instead of whacking huge chunks of the article because we regard them as suspicious. Does that path see all that objectionable? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although my knowledge of Jewish studies is not extensive (excluding Jewish communities in the Classical age), a quick read of the 55k article doesn't produce sizable chunks of WP:OR or WP:POV that jump at me. Let's focus on the content here, and not the contributor. Personally, I have come across a few articles where large chunks were taken out because the contributor was later shown to have abused sources, and generally, that approach is misguided and destructive.
 * I would personally be in favor of reverting to the 5k article if we have a quick and constructive check of the material removed and then put it back. Otherwise, what is being done is really unnecessary.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed the previous discussions on the topic? Most of the material wasn't actually things covered a more NPOV way in other articles like Lesbian and gay topics and Judaism, Judaism and violence etc. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And as you know, I have argued that as a summary style article, it should be fine to have brief sections here that point to those other articles. POV issues need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and I think removing the work of a large number of editors over a long period of time is inappropriate. I won't revert you, because I do not want to have this disintegrate into an edit war, but you have thrown out some good material. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Nuujinn here. Keeping the material seems the lesser of two evils. If there are particular points that others would like to raise, they can do so here. "Bold" reverting is quite destructive and ignores the dozen and a half editors who have double-digit contributions (a decent number of whom started contributing after 2009).
 * Again, I'm open and willing to help review the content, get other sources, and expand this. Blanking it is not helpful.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 22:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn writes, "What I am suggesting is that we discuss specific issues and deal with them, one at a time," Great! Then, one at a time, introduce what topic you wish to add to the article here on the talk page with the sources you are using and let's discuss them one at a time before adding anything. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The first I would suggest would be the Inter-branch criticisms section. I think it would need to be tightened a bit, we don't really need the quotes, and the last line seems out of place. I would also suggest we use references and note sections so as to be able to specific page numbers in sources for each individual reference. But to be clear, I think most of the sections have potential so long as we keep the prose tight, and adhere to the notion that this article is best as a summary style article acting as an aid to navigation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The right approach here is to accept, for now, that the page was reverted to pre-Noleander, and to also accept that material can be added back, case-by-case, if there is consensus to do so. I tend to agree with Nuujinn and Aua that a lot of the deleted material can properly be brought back in some form, perhaps with some cleaning up if needed. There's no need for editors to revert the whole page to the controversial version, as happened the other day. If for no other reason, there's no need for the drama. So let's begin a process of proposing what should, perhaps, be brought back. And it's a faulty argument to say: but that comes from the "Noleander version", so it has to be tainted. Please evaluate content on the merits, in the present day.

So, Nuujinn suggests the Inter-branch criticisms material should be considered for adding back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a 'Noleander' version. There were several people with double digit edits to that page and there were literally hours a day of discussion and arguing over the material and it stayed in after all that discussion.  One lead editors dismissal is not enough grounds to remove all the rest of our work.  There will always be drama on this page because there are POV warriors watching it like hawks. Alatari (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

While there is certainly acceptable material in the intervening edits, it should be discussed case-by-case, as Noleander's edits are interspersed throughout and his edits are rather suspect. Blanket restoration and the piecemeal removal is, in my opinion, for whatever it is worth, worse than blanket deletion and piecemeal restoration, as the presence of inappropriate material is more harmful to the project than the absence of acceptable material. -- Avi (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Point out some unsourced 'unacceptable' information and exactly why you feel it is offensive. Alatari (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Months and months were spent discussing this. Rehashing it is going to help no one. Perhaps you should review Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 5, Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 6, Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 7, and Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 9 for background, discussions, etc. -- Avi (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No need. I was there through most of it.  Alatari (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My sympathies, that was a rough period for us all, well it was for me. -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing religion articles tend to be the hardest. "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." Criticizing religion violates that assertion and deep feelings are aroused when faith is involved.  I take NPOV very seriously because this great work of Wikipedia  is the culmination and embodiment of all human's knowledge and a legacy for our descendants.  Alatari (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I say this as a non-believer myself, but you're only half correct here, because criticism of religion is itself, quite often just as wrought with emotion as religious conviction is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can certainly work at building it back up rather than cleaning it out, so I suggest that we adopt the method suggested by Tryptofish and Avi, and work out what should be added back. I also strongly suggest that we do treat this as a summary style article, and not let this grow too large or complex. Does that seem reasonable? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason why people can't go through the May version and start suggesting discussion of materials to be re-added to the entry. There is no rush here. I agree with those who say that it was necessary to go back to the pre-Noleander version. Of course, Noleander didn't write it all by himself, but sometimes we have to weight the pros and cons of doing something and make some sacrifices.Griswaldo (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted Steven J. Anderson's "bold revert" back to "pre-Noleander"
I understand that there are those who are highly skeptical of anything that Noleander did. However, when I review the stuff that was removed by Steven J. Anderson's attempt to revert back to the pre-Noleander version, I can't find anything that is really objectionable. I mean, I might not personally give those criticisms much weight but they seem like they are verifiable criticisms that are made in the real world. This is not to say that the current state of the article is perfect but I think we should go forward from where we are rather than revert to August 2009. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been lengthy discussion on the Talk: page of this article (see also archives) indicating that the entire article is and has always been a WP:SYNTH violation, much like the other already-deleted or soon-to-be-deleted Noleander articles. I'm restoring it to its pre-Noleander version, in part because of the lengthy objections already raised, and in part because AfD is not set up to remove a specific editor's contributions to an article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere. The arbcom case and my own source checks support only one conclusion. Nothing Noleander says about a source can be taken on trust. I consider it fully justified to undo, revert and delete everything he has written about Judaism. His consistent history of misrepresenting sources makes this clear. It makes no sense to go through his edits one at a time and try to tease out whatever might be valid. It makes articles much better much faster to simply get rid of whatever he has done to them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a tough call, and I urge all editors to take it slow on this one. For now, I would like to go along with Steven's edit, on the grounds that it is best to be careful about content. It's probably safer to remove all debated content, as Steven did, and then discuss adding things back on a case-by-case basis, instead of restoring the material and asking editors to justify deletion on a case-by-case basis.


 * But, that said, I think there is a problem with Steven's and Jayjg's reasoning here. ArbCom topic banned Noleander, but did not issue a ruling that all his edits be rolled back, even though some users proposed to do so in the workshop. This page existed before the start of the ArbCom case, and it did not change significantly during the case. Prior to the edits of the last several hours, there had, indeed, been a lot of discussion in this talk, and the (admittedly uneasy) consensus was to have the page in the form that it was. It's not like Noleander was holding a gun to anyone's head here and forcing the community to accept content that the community didn't want. I fear that what I'm seeing here is exactly what I warned about during the arbitration: that editors who disagree with Noleander will try to use the ruling to gain an upper hand in content disputes. It is a misunderstanding of the ArbCom ruling to use it as a justification for saying that now the goalposts have moved and editors who didn't get what they wanted before the case can now get exactly what they want. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you partially, Tryptofish. I think that going slowly and acting advisedly in situations like this is the right thing to do. How to deal with Noleander's contributions and what is the best way to get his bad research out of articles is something that has to be looked at on an article-by-article basis. However there are some articles (like this one) in which his distortion of sources is so deeply entangled, and that are so much a product of his work that the obvious, simple, most efficient solution is either deletion or reversion to before his first edit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I mostly disagree with your analysis, Tryptofish, because, as you well know, there were significant objections to all the material Noleander added from a long list of editors, including me, User:Avraham, User:jpgordon, User:Chesdovi, User:Camelbinky, User:Gavin.collins, User:Bus stop, and User:SDY. The issues we all raised were exactly what was discovered to be the case in the Arbcom case and related AfDs - that these were coatrack articles comprised entirely of WP:NOR that abused their sources, which often weren't particularly good to begin with. At the time, however, Noleander's inappropriate editing was defended by a small number of editors, which made him feel bold enough to ignore all the objections. Since the Arbcom case, however, I imagine his enablers will not be so eager to defend his material - and most of them do not, so far, appear to be willing to do so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must defer to Jayjg's better knowledge of the arbcom case, in which I was not directly involved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't "directly involved" either, but I did present evidence, and read the outcome carefully. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg's knowledge might be better still if he realized that he cited the support of a banned editor, but no matter. In time I'm sure that anyone who thinks they can shut down disagreement by claiming that those who disagree are anyone's enablers will find that it's an ineffectual argument. Noleander is gone from pages in this topic area, so it isn't about defending "his" material. It's a matter of NPOV, and nobody owns these pages. And don't forget, I supported Steven's removal of the material. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was "no matter", then why did you mention it? You could just as well have mentioned that one of Noleander's few (and main) supporters left Wikipedia last December after being repeatedly blocked for edit-warring. Anyway, I was quite well aware of it, but the "banned editor"'s arguments were valid, and he was not banned for anything he did or said on this topic, so it's just irrelevant poisoning the well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There were many people that were in agreement with Noleander and supported his work through a very lengthy debate on this page. You list User:Avraham, User:jpgordon, User:Chesdovi, User:Camelbinky, User:Gavin.collins, User:Bus stop, and User:SDY but there was an even longer list of supporters of the material or the consensus would have been to stop the page from growing to the 55k character count. I know one of those users you list got a temp ban because of their methods to stop Noleander from inserting sourced material. I pledged to check on this page every so often and am dismayed that sourced material built from a consensus built over many months is all being tossed. Noleander did not work in a vacuum and so I will boldly return the page to where the consensus had brought us and you can choose to move slowly on what material you think is not properly sourced. Alatari (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any "longer list of supporters of the material". The material was removed for the reasons stated above, as part of the fix for problems created by Noleander, which led to his Arbcom case and eventual topical banning. If you want to restore it now, you'll have to try to build a new consensus to do so, and it will need to be a pretty clear one. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand Noleander has been misrepresenting sources, he did NOT work on his own, and by reverting to 2009, you are reverting everyone who has ever contributed to this page for two years. That's utterly unreasonable and a slap to the face of other contributors. The Arbcom didn't say we should revert him for a reason. I would revert it back to the 55k revision, but it seems like we are on the verge of edit warring.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 17:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The material here, including all of the other edits, was based on Noleander's work - it was essentially his work, or minor modifications of it, or small responses to it. It is therefore all tainted. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom case did not say to remove all the work of many other editors. It just bans Noleander from further edits. I'm in agreement with Aua, Jyajg, you are not destroying the work of the other editors or removing validly sourced material without heading to ArbCom yet again. Alatari (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My attention was drawn back to this page thanks to a post at WP:JUDAISM. I still think the ARBCOM decision does not justify the reversion back to 2009 (assuming that Aua is correct in stating that the revert goes back that far).  However, I think we are spending too much time arguing over abstract principles (i.e. reverting or not reverting) vs. focusing on the specific content and any problems or doubts about it.
 * My experience in working with Noleander's edits on Jews and money is that 80% of it is sound, 15% is dubious and about 5% is total dreck, some of it even antisemitic in tone without the requisite attribution and appropriate couching (i.e. presenting assertions as a POV rather than as a fact). I have always assumed good faith and attributed the 20% yucky stuff to poor judgment and sloppy writing.  I don't know if the same is true of Noleander's edits to this article.  However, my experience with his writing on Jews and money leads me to believe that it is well worth reviewing the reverted text and restoring parts of it on a case-by-case basis with plenty of collegial and collaborative discussion on this Talk Page to make sure it has been adequately vetted.
 * In the next few days, I will attempt to analyze the reverted material more closely and provide a critique of what is sound, what is dubious and what is dreck.
 * --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Inter-branch criticisms
Should the inter-branch criticism material be added back? If so, what material, exactly, would we be adding? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If any of the sub sections have a main article that is valid then the subsection here should remain as this article is a topic lead-in for those other pages. Alatari (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound like a terribly good idea. There are other places where we could discuss that. This article should limit its scope to criticism of the Jewish religion from "outside". JFW &#124; T@lk  06:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where would the interbranch criticisms be discussed? If no other place is proffered and acceptable then they fall here.  Alatari (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, why would it be inappropriate for criticisms of the main branches of Judaism by made by Jews to be summarized here, even if they are discussed elsewhere? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the only objection so far is only that the page should deal with "outside" criticism, I don't think that's a valid objection. There is, after all, an extensive, important, and well-documented tradition of self-criticism within Judaism. I'd still like to see the proposed content, but I think I support the proposal in principle. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense.  criticism of Orthodox Judaism is not a criticism of Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ri) Although I risk committing a great WP fallacy, other "Criticism of XX" articles had to deal with the same issue and eventually included the contested material. There will all always be different interpretations of any religious code and we must include criticism of all the constituent interpretations if we can find the sources and if they are really part of that religion (this is, of course, to avoid issues like "is criticism of LDS appropriate in the Christian article?"). In fact, the Criticism of Islam article (and to a certain degree Criticism of Christianity) criticizes Muslims (and extreme ones, for that matter) more than it does Islam- let alone its branches. In any case, criticism from the inside is fair game too (otherwise we will get in another big swamp). Cheers! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to run afoul of OTHERSTUFF, but imagine the Criticism of Christianity entry if we added all the notable "inter-branch" criticisms. We should focus here on criticisms that are aimed more generally at Judaism. If the Criticism of Islam article focuses more on extremists than the religion generally speaking, then someone ought to fix the article. That's exactly the type of thing we ought not to be doing with these types of articles.Griswaldo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the case here. If we keep to the broad categories of Orthodox/Conservative/Reformed, and keep it as a summary, it should not be all that messy. Sorry to keep hammering on the issue, but I think the best way to avoid a quagmire is to keep strictly to summary style and point where we can to other articles treating the issues in more depth.
 * I don't agree. There is a logical problem with doing "inter-branch" criticism, because none of the criticisms are directed towards Judaism. Are they criticizing groups of other Jews? Yes, but not "Judaism." Let's take a different example. If I think citizenship in the my home country means one ought to do X, Y or Z, and believe 1, 2 and 3, then I might criticize other citizens for not being good citizens, or true citizens. I might also disagree with them and argue about what citizenship really means. Yet at no time am I criticizing American citizenship itself. Indeed I'm doing just the opposite. The situation is the same when different factions within a religion criticize each other.Griswaldo (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, Griswaldo, very persuasive and clear. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ri)If, I, another American, were to criticize you for thinking that way and for believing that citizenship comes hand-in-hand with belief 2, then I am criticizing your interpretation of that citizenship. If belief 2 were, say, an American must always use Comic Sans in all word documents, and a number of Americans did that with you to the dismay of the world, then an article criticizing American citizenship would include that aspect of criticism and would reference my views. It would say that the "Griswaldian" tradition thinks Americans should always use Comic Sans, and that other Americans disagree with it.
 * Hopefully that wasn't confusing. Essentially, what I am saying is that Judaism has multiple interpretations. This article is criticism of the more popular interpretations and traditions of this religion and there is no reason to exclude criticism for any particular tradition/interpretation, even if it came from within.
 * Here is a third way to phrase it: religion is a bunch of actions/beliefs. People differ on what those actions/beliefs are. If someone disagrees with one of those actions, and someone believes such action is sanctioned by that religion, then that religion deserves criticism since it could, or it does, sanction such action.
 * Final way to put it:

1. X thinks they are commanded by S to do action1.

2. Y thinks action1 is stupid and bashes it.

3. User:aua comes to write an article criticizing S. He will breakdown the article into several sections and analyzes each command by S. When he gets to action1, he would include Y's opinion since there is no reason not to. You should be able to criticize the constituents since ALL religions are composed of different parts. I see where you are coming from, but "pure" Judaism, the one we would ideally criticize doesn't exist. There are multiple understandings, and we should be comprehensive. If we only limit ourselves to what unites them all, we wouldn't have much to work with since there is not much that unites them beyond the basics. You only have to look at this to see the very definition of "Jewish" is contested. Cheers! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is not called Criticism of Judaisms (plural), and until it is that view remains illogical and incorrect. Any Jew who criticizes certain practices or beliefs that are held by groups of other Jews, quite clearly does not consider those practices or beliefs to be components of Judaism at all. That's the problem that I feel isn't coming across for some reason. These people are not criticizing Judaism. What they are doing is exactly the opposite. They are defending Judaism (as they understand it) against the claims of others, who say that Judaism is something slightly, or perhaps even completely different. You are mixing the criticism of "Jews" (as defined by self-identification) up with the criticism of Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another way to think about it:
 * X thinks religion J= action1 + action2 + action3
 * Y thinks religion J= action2 + action4, and criticizes action1
 * If I come to write an article about religion J, why would I not include criticism about action1? Criticism from within is, in fact, helpful because it shows not all those who subscribe to religion J believe in action1, and some of them actively oppose it.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 19:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already answered this question more than once at this point. Because Y, if he's a Jew, doesn't think that action 1 is part of Judaism in the first place. So when he criticizes action 1 he is quite specifically not criticizing Judaism. By the way there are already appropriate articles for some of this material - see Criticism of Conservative Judaism for example.Griswaldo (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aua, you have demonstrated that you have several ways of explaining how you think about this. Alas, so far you have not persuaded many others. You really do not need to explain yourself another time. I understand your view. I just do not share it. We have an article on relations among Jewish movements, and we have an article on schisms in Judaism. If you really think we need another article to cover controversies and conflicts within Judaism, give it a shot. But I do not believe this article should be used for that purpose. Yes, I know you view it differently than I. That is called a disagreement. Not miscomprehension. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That was an edit conflict actually. I wrote the last post before reading Griswaldo.
 * @Griswaldo: You are right. That Jew is criticizing something he believes it not Jewish. Some other Jews think what he is criticizing IS Jewish. To them, he IS criticizing part of Judaism!
 * What you are saying is only taking things from the point of view of the Jew criticizing. I hope this makes more sense.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 19:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You acknowledge that according to the critics, they are not criticizing Judaism. So you agree, in other words that there is no intent to criticize Judaism in these disagreements. Then I suppose you must have sources that show that the effect of these criticisms, despite the intent, has been to criticize Judaism. At the very least you must have sources that show those who are criticized viewing this as a critique of Judaism. Do you? I'd like to see them. I'm getting tired of this argument, and will resort to our basic policies when it comes to content - especially WP:V and WP:NOR. Let's see the sources that identify the material as "criticism of Judaism." Otherwise I agree with Slrubenestein's comment to you just above and will also disengage.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that was going to be my last post too. Now that we understand (though disagree with) each other, we can move to the sources stages. I will have to go back to my sources to produce concrete examples. Accusations someone was not "Jewish" or they were attacking the religion because they opposed something within Judaism are abundant throughout history, but you will have to give me some time to get some of them here. Funnily enough, I was thinking about Christ and how he was attacked for his reforms despite the fact he was Jewish (yes, that example is extremely imperfect, but I'll get you good ones).
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

After listening to the comments here, I'm ambivalent about whether inter-branch criticisms are or are not "criticism of Judaism". I think that criticisms of the form "such and such is not true Judaism, even though those people in that other branch claim that it is" do not, indeed, belong here. On the other hand, criticism of the form "such and such, practiced by other branches of Judaism, are bad aspects of Judaism as it exists or has existed in the world" very much do belong here, and I'm pretty sure that such criticisms exist. (I think that a notable aspect of Judaism has been, historically, an embracing of that kind of intellectual exploration, in ways that do not exist in some other religions.) It may be a matter of looking more closely at what, precisely, a given source actually says, and making a distinction between criticisms of Judaism, and criticisms of practices that the critic considers not to be correct Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an artificial distinction. The one assumes the other, even it if is not stated directly. Indeed I don't expect to see many actual "that's not true Judaism" statements at all. That said, what I think you're really focusing on is a criticism of how a religion, or a sect of a religion is being practiced at a given time. If you actually look at the last version of this section you will see exactly that. Inherent in all the criticisms is the sense that people are doing something bad to Judaism, which ought to be brought back to a purer state, or conversely freed form a traditional one. To get back to something Aua claimed above, it is possible that those being criticized have said, well that makes you "anti-Jewish" because if you criticize what I do clearly you criticize Judaism. But that would simply be a political ploy, not unlike calling a critic of the current policies of the, current regime in the United States (for instance) anti-American. Let me throw another example in the works. Is Greg Epstein, an atheist and the humanist chaplain at Harvard, a "critic of atheism," because he once called several of the New Atheists, "atheist fundamentalists?" I mean that's a highly critical remark, especially to a non-believer.Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to make a long story short, I would go by what the sources say. If a common-sense reading of the source indicates that it is not really intended by the author of the source as a criticism of Judaism, then it doesn't belong here. But I don't want editors trying to veto a source by claiming that the source isn't really criticizing Judaism, because it isn't a valid criticism in the opinion of the editor.


 * Let's please stop discussing this in theory. Let's look at the specific examples. Does anyone want to propose some specifics as being, genuinely, criticisms of Judaism? Alternatively, does anyone want to go through every example in the reverted version, and explain that they are each really just arguments about "true" Judaism? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through them, and that's why I linked to the old version in my response. They are all arguments of the kind I described. Do I really have to list them all out here?Griswaldo (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) All of the Criticism of Conservative Judaism from other branches consists of criticisms based on the notion that Conservative Jews don't practice Judaism properly. 2) All of the Criticism of traditional Judaism by reform movement consists of criticisms based on the idea of liberating Judaism from some of the problems they associate with it's traditional past. In both cases Judaism is never criticized, but other Jews are for not practicing it properly or for keeping it in the dark ages.Griswaldo (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems fairly obvious to me that "Criticism of Reform Judaism" belongs in the Reform Judaism article, "Criticism of Orthodox Judaism" belongs in the Orthodox Judaism article etc. That is where it is most logical, relevant and useful, and where the reader would expect to find it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless someone else comes along and disagrees, I'm quite happy to go along with what the two of you say here. My only caveat would be that criticisms about "liberating Judaism from some of the problems" from "the dark ages" may not really be about Reform Jews criticizing Orthodox so much as self-criticizing the religion more inclusively, and I would be open to keeping that in. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with it as well, but with the caveat that I may bring it back here if the material cannot be incorporated into those other articles. Better to make some forward progress and get some momentum going here on areas where we can come to consensus. I do think we should link to those from here, though. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish is right that there are more general criticisms of Judaism emerging from the dark ages. These were voiced during the Haskalah and belong in that article.  But I am in principle agreeing with Jayjg that most of these criticisms come from specific directions that already have articles of their own and are the proper place to develop them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can suggest some section from the recently deleted material that addresses a topic you feel is appropriate for inclusion here? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This might be a tad irrelevant, but..
..since I will keep out of the discussion of what belongs and what doesn't belong to this article (in all honesty, it seems a tad bit arbitrary where we are drawing the line. For instance, just because someone criticizes Kosher slaughter it doesn't mean they are criticizing the whole religion. In fact, they might be trying to purge it of barbaric practices! In my mind, that is no different than a Jew criticizing other Jews for a practice their Judaism asks them to do but his Judaism doesn't). In any case, if you guys are familiar with Jagged 85 cleanup, you would remember this template. It's rather useful. Now, I am not sure about Noleander did or how extensive is the cleanup, but do you believe we could have a similar template here? At least for this article since we took the bold move of actually cutting it down massively? Cheers! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 21:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd kind of prefer not to clutter the page itself with another tag, but I'll put the tag now on this talk page. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But: how do we fix the link of "misused sources"? (I'm not too skillful with templates.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant make a new template specifically for Noleander. Like I said, I have no idea how extensive is the clean-up after him (someone who was here through it all can probably shed some light on it for us), but I'm assuming it was extensive enough for it to include obliterating 50k of mainspace text here (and therefore the template could be used in other articles). It's my understanding that rebuilding this will take some time, so why not alert users to the our "bold" revert?
 * As for correcting the link, I believe we should use the source instead of linking to it. But like I said, I can make a new, similar template like this *snaps fingers!*.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and created the template. It's now on the page. When we do mammoth removals, we should let readers know (otherwise, they will think that's the extent of the criticism or that we have an incomplete article and no-one is working on it). I don't think it's cluttering, as it's only 2 tags right now (both are important).
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 16:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason we should be careful about this article
Well, I might pointing out the obvious here, but an article like this will attract civil POV pushers and even outright vandals and advocacy groups. I would definitely love to see the editors who, with great fervor and enthusiasm, wanted to see the material removed to be re-added piecemeal contribute more to the actual re-addition.

This is not to say I am accusing or pointing fingers at anyone here. Even those who disagreed with me above seem to be neutral (User:Griswaldo is pretty reasonable, for instance). It's just that reading some objections above ("a criticism of an aspect of Judaism is not a criticism of the whole religion") makes me want to reiterate the point that we should be as neutral as possible and keep an eye on POV warriors!

Here is to a quick, neutral rebuilding of the article! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Religion is always a sensitive topic. Some people have some very strong feelings about religions they identify with, and yet others have some rather different feelings, equally strong, about the religions they don't identify with. Being on a look out for POV pushing is a very good idea, but also keep in mind that this is a sensitive topic for many. I'm not always reasonable btw, but I'm flattered nonetheless. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree; it's a sensitive topic. On the other hand, there is nothing I respect more than a religion willing to take criticism (esp. self-criticism), and Judaism is known for that.
 * And yes, you are reasonable. You have a very clear and persuasive approach to what should be included, and obviously have this article's best interests in mind (just like Tryptofish and others. We might disagree, but we have a common goal). Some other editors seem more interested in just blanking the article than actual contribution.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 10:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm completely unreasonable. { --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza,(1) Mordecai Kaplan,(2) and prominent atheists(3)
These are the first 3 prominent critics listed. They have good sources and if they are reliable then we follow their topic headings. This is what was done before and Spinoza and Kaplan's works directed much of the page. Noleander's influence can be removed by rewriting the sentences but the topics were derived from much of these person's critiques. Alatari (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this, depending of course on the details. Clearly, these are encyclopedic sources, not antisemitic canards. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Willing to help rewrite if you want. Cheers! &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 16:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to represent Spinoza's views accurately, but it misrepresents Kaplan's views. Kaplan was not criticizing Judaism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we agree about Spinoza and the atheists, and can add them back? Does anyone else object? And what, precisely, is the argument that Kaplan was not criticizing Judaism? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure - I think we need more discussion. Maimonides said that we cannot really know anything about God.  It is not clear to me how many of the Rabbis believed in a personal God or used stories of a personal God allegorically.  We need to be sure to represent Judaism carefully.  Clearly there are stories that depict a God with body parts. But whether all Jews or even many Jews interpret those stories literally is another matter.


 * I think we are on safer ground if we talk about a God who created the universe. This does not have to be a personal God, but it certainly has also been criticized. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we stand on this discussion at this time. How about bringing back Spinoza and the atheists? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, very tentatively, added back some of the text. I removed mention of Kaplan, and used a sub-header that refers to creation of the universe, but I did so fully realizing that there is, in this version, some contradiction in that the text still refers mostly to the issues about a personal God, so I'm counting on other editors to help reconcile and perhaps expand that a bit. Nothing I did is etched in stone, of course, just trying to keep things moving. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul's Criticism of Judaism 2
I expanded the christian criticism with some material I put together during the troubles, comments/criticism welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm probably about to violate WP:BEANS, but I'm just waiting for someone to say that Paul/Saul was actually a Jew, so it doesn't belong here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks for that, been a long day... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, though "was" is the operative word here, in the sense that he was no longer by that point.Griswaldo (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one illogical bit in there, though I do not see it worth removing from my perpsective. Where Paul criticizes Jews for not accepting Jesus. Two issues: One is that it is a criticism of Jews, not Judaism (and during Paul's time there was little difference as Jesus' initial followers were all Jewish and conisdered themselves Jewish (even if other Jews did not). There is even much current research suggesting that Jesus himself preached to follow the laws of Judiasm. The other issue with the statement is simply that criticizing Jews/Judaism because they do not accept Jesus is like criticizing a Red Sox fan because they do not root for the Yankees. Judaism considers Jesus a great and mortal man and not the son of G-d, Messiah or savior. Same for Islam for that matter (although since Islam is newer, he is considered a prophet too). Religions do not change easily. They splinter off into separate religions often or warring versions of the same religion (Shiite vs. Sunni, Protestant vs. Catholic, etc.) On some level, that goes for Christianity vs. Judaism. Christianity split off from Judaism and has grown into its own separate religion. Choosing one's faith, whether by birth or conscious choice is not really something to criticize. More of a logic thing and the remainder of the section is valuable I think.Sposer (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we shorten anything from the text as it is now? I realize you said that you weren't advocating deleting the material, but perhaps there is something that could be worded better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, please do, it is pretty rough. Also, as I've said, I think this article is better as a summary style article, so feel free to relocate material to other articles to which we can link from here. In regard to Sposer's comments, I would politely disagree to the extent that Paul's criticisms were developed into a tradition of polemics, which was used as a criticism of Judaism and Jews. But that being said, I'm certainly not opposed to recasting/refactoring or trimming of material, please do take a crack at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

General comment
I'd like to make a general comment that I hope, perhaps, may be helpful. To be included on this page, as a "criticism of Judaism", a criticism need not be valid. It need only be a criticism, and satisfy WP:V, WP:RS, and so forth. I sometimes wonder whether some editors feel unhappy about any content on the page, because they feel that Judaism is being criticized. The fact that Wikipedia reports a criticism in no way means that Wikipedia endorses that criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports beliefs of reliable sources. This topic is undeniably a touchy subject but omitting reliably sourced criticisms is not following Wikipedia fundamentals.  Atheist criticisms are being excluded but I doubt the New Atheists POV editors will let this stand for ever.  I'm too tired everyday just trying to stay alive now to spend time fighting here.  Hope you can bring this page to a balanced POV, Tryptofish. Alatari (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that! Given the discussion of today, I just want to say that, despite some editors' possibly-misplaced confidence in my abilities, I really need help from other editors. It's not like I'm going to take care of it all by myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Chosen people"
Continuing our discussion, section by section, of material from the old version of the page that might or might not be restored, perhaps with new sourcing and rewriting, how about the old section about "Chosen people"? Is there anything there that ought to be brought back? Anything there that was improperly sourced or written? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No concerns? Really? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a rather short, well-sourced section. Much of what's there is a direct quote from sources (e.g. from here). It seems reasonable. Nothing stood out as particularly erroneous. However, would this "Many Jews find the concept of chosenness problematic or an anachronism" be problematic? It is sourced to Dennis Prager in his explanation of antisemitism. I'm not really sure how many Jews find it "problematic or an anachronism," and seems to reflect only the reform's views.
 * I don't know. It's not a big deal anyways.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 15:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made an edit, putting some of the material back. Per your comment, I left out that sentence. I also deleted a sentence about antisemites making the criticism. As before, I ask that other editors look critically at whether or not I got it right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, part of what you put in the "Chosen people" section uses the following source: Wistrich, Robert S.. Demonizing the other: antisemitism, racism & xenophobia. Taylor & Francis, 1999. p. 6.
 * Are you in possession of a copy of this book and can you verify that it is being characterized accurately? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent catch, thanks. No, I don't have that book, and I am immediately going to delete the part that is sourced to it (especially since it is talking about critics outside Judaism in a section about criticism within Judaism). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that that's out, I have a little trouble seeing how anything in that section as clearly a criticism of Judaism. Also, what about the other print sources mentioned there? Have you checked them? Do you know what they say? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given your concerns, I decided that it would be best to completely self-revert, and remove the section entirely for now. I began this talk thread by asking if there were concerns about the section, and didn't think that there were any. Given your comments now, I feel it's best to leave this out until we have a better consensus one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, restart. About the point of it not clearly being a criticism of Judaism, it occurs to me that we might need better sourcing to indicate a basis for the "chosen people" assertion originating in the text of the Old Testament, which of course it does, but it would be desirable to have secondary sourcing that refers directly to the scriptural basis, rather than to positions taken by sections of the religion. I think that criticism by Spinoza and Kaplan is appropriate to include, unless the sourcing does not support the claim that the criticism occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Anderson: yes, but I do have access to that book. Here is that paragraph:
 * "Freud was also alive to the powerful charge of sibling rivalry or jealousy of the Jews as the "chosen people" of God, the favored nation of God the Father. Freud did not elaborate on this point, but there is no doubt that antagonism towards the claim of chosenness has indeed been a constant motif in antisemitism through the ages. One testimony to its force lies in the usurpation of God's promises to the Jews by the Christian churches, as the heirs of ancient Israel, who have superseded it in divine favor. In Islam, too, there is a doctrine of supersession (of both Judaism and Christianity) in which Muslims become the elect people of Allah. Moreover, in many modem nationalisms, the Judaic idea of chosenness has been adopted (often in a secularized and politicized form) and not infrequently has it led to fierce hostility against Jews and Judaism. As the most ancient repositories of chosenness, the Jews are almost inevitably a lightning rod for rival claims of election, whose psychological dynamics can easily trigger an irrational hatred, This, again, seems to me a distinctive feature of antisemitism compared with most forms of hatred towards the "other.""
 * What has been claimed seems to exactly capture what's in the source.
 * I wouldn't have said the section was ok if I didn't do some checking beforehand.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 16:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aua, thank you very much! Indeed, when I first added the material back, I was AGFing that editors would reply in this talk based on such diligence. At the same time, seeing this paragraph, I'm prompted to have some doubts about using it as a source here, for the kinds of reasons that were originally raised in reverting the page. It seems to me that a large part (albeit not all) of what the author of the source is saying is summed up in the last sentence, where the "criticism" is characterized as being antisemitism rather than criticism of religious doctrine. There has been at least some consensus in the past that "criticisms" that are only antisemitic canards should be on that page, not this one. I don't think that criticisms of the doctrine of chosen-ness are exclusively antisemitism, so I still think the topic is appropriate to this page, but I now have diminished enthusiasm for using that particular source. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File this under "fool me once, shame on you, etc." I see at the thread that Griswaldo opened at ORN that someone took advantage of the situation to imply that I was irresponsible in adding material that I then was very quick to self-revert when a question was raised about the sources (not that anyone had any difficulty convincing me to self-revert immediately!). Silly me, I had assumed that editors would cooperate as had happened in the now conveniently archived threads in Archive 10, about Baruch Spinoza,(1) Mordecai Kaplan,(2) and prominent atheists(3) and Paul's Criticism of Judaism 2. I now realize that editors who don't really want there to be any criticisms are going to sit quietly until something is actually added to the page, and then jump into action to impute bad faith. Well, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds material to check that material before adding it: I know that. I'm not going to fall for that a second time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reached out to you in this talk in good faith in the spirit of working with your identification of better sources to replace the over-emphasis on an animal welfare group in the Kosher slaughter section. You apparently have reacted to that by deciding that I was trying to divide and conquer, whatever that means. I no longer expect you to understand or be persuaded by my saying that, but I am instead saying this for the benefit of uninvolved editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch, I had been hold my tongue in regard to your comments at ORN, but I think some of your comments were completely unwarranted and should be struck. If you feel those comments were justified, my suggestion would be to name names, provide diffs, and do so in an appropriate forum such as ANI rather than ORN. Snarky comments here and at ORN are not, in my opinion, appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't make snarky comments. Sarcasm is a rhetorical device of the feeble-minded and you won't find me descending to that level of discourse. I don't express myself using cynical language in the academic world, and I consider Wikipedia an extension of academia. Profanity, personal attacks and sarcasm have no place in academia, hence they should have no place here. I recognize that it's fashionable for people to wax sarcastic and compete for who can be the number-one cynic, but I frankly look down on those people and feel sympathy for them. User:Tryptofish was penitent in relation to the addition of text sourced to unverified refs, and it was my intention to commend his acknowledgment of that penitence. Initially my reply was just going to be "Good," but it occurred to me that would probably be taken the wrong way. It's regrettable that editors assume bad faith even when efforts are made to communicate a positive message in relation to an earlier wrongdoing. Yes, editors were nasty and used divide-and-conquer tactics. I don't remember who those editors were and I'm not about to waste any of my time reading through walls of text to determine who said what when where and why. User:Nuujinn, if you're of the opinion that some of my comments constituted a personal attack and deserve to be stricken, then you can point them out to me and I'll consider striking them out. As things stand, your accusation is meritless.—Biosketch (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit. Evidently you know which comment I mean. If you cannot remember who the editors were who you characterized as "the same inclusion-bent editors engaging in divide-and-conquer tactics to isolate one editor they disagree with and pommel him with nasty remarks", then why bring it up? What's the purpose? The comment is not about content, it is purely about behaviour, and has nothing to do with OR issues, and yes, I would appreciate it if you struck the comment. But that's all I have to say about this. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Respectfully dismissed.—Biosketch (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So is your veneer of civility. You make harsh accusations against a group of editors in order to gain advantage in an argument at a noticeboard then when challenged refuse to provide diffs or to even say who those editors are? I'm an academic myself Biosketch and that type of behavior would hardly be tolerated in the academic communities I'm a member of. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether or not I am "penitent", I want to thank Nuujinn and Griswaldo for the supportive words. But this argument is going nowhere fast, and I think that it is time to let it go and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Land ownership
Same question as above, about the old section on land ownership. I think it's immediately apparent that there has to be a clearer relationship to Old Testament descriptions of the promised land, and clear secondary source linking of that to the land disputes of recent decades, but it seems to me that this may be doable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. Let's put it back. Took me a while to go through although it was short.
 * Funny oddities of this page: you've had the question there for more than a week now, and there was not a single reply. Once we decide to put this back, this discussion section will span a page; mostly some other editors objecting to a phrase here or there.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll comment now, then. Is what you're proposing the return to the article of material previously deleted from it that was based upon falsified sources? If so, I oppose. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If not, then I am taking it that you are in support of adding it back? Great! Now, we have 2 editors supporting this! The sourcing seems solid to me (and it's sourced pretty darn well).
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you're well aware, I said nothing of the kind. Assumptions of good faith have been duly suspended. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And here we go again. The material you added is referenced to a number of print sources. Are you in possession of copies of these sources and can you verify that they are being accurately characterized in the material you have added to the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any consensus to return this fruit of the poisonous tree material. Aua, have you personally reviewed every source included? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I third what Steven J. Anderson and Jay are saying about fruit from the poisonous tree. However, beyond that I do not think this material should be added on conceptual grounds, even if the sources verify. Zionism is a modern political movement which may invoke religion but that is all. It is not an essential or long standing Jewish religious belief or practice, even if it claims that it is based in such beliefs or practices. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jay and Anderson: yes, I have. I already answered to questions demanding paragraphs from sources before (still on this page, actually), and will answer more if needed. Please don't ask things like "please quote every source you put back," as I really don't have time to type everything up, but if you have a specific one in mind, I'll be happy to oblige. I might not be quick to reply (I have academic papers currently under review, and they take up time like no other), but I will try to be prompt. @Griswaldo, we can discuss that. Here, we have criticism of that belief (which is used by Zionism). The belief itself is a Jewish as Hanukkah. IMO, it deserves a place here. I can back that with sources, but I really hate the way things are run here. You probably share my feeling. Cheers! &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 05:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time to do the research necessary to use those sources, you don't have time to use them in the article. It's that simple. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll suspend my AGF, too. I said "I really don't have time to type everything up," not "I don't have time to look it up."
 * Are there any other objections?
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 14:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I'm off the internet for two days, and we're right back where we were! I want to note that I began this talk thread with a comment that I hope made clear that I was sure that there needed to be, at a minimum, some changes to the old version. I also want to note that it's a fact of life, that, as Aua said earlier, my opening post can sit here with no response for a long time, but the nanosecond someone actually adds something to the page, there will suddenly be a lot of discussion. OK, that's a fact of life. And OK, it's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to make sure that it's properly sourced and written. I no longer think it's a good idea to do what I tried in this thread, which was to try to discuss, one at a time, the deleted sections, and to try to figure out through discussion what is, and what is not, useful to salvage, and what would be needed to fix it. In a better editing environment, that would work. But this isn't that environment. There's no point in continuing something that we now know will not work. Instead, I think we need to use, as a starting point, the secondary sources that were beginning to be discussed in the thread about the lead, and build topic areas from scratch, based on what those sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! You see, I was gonna have a table, where people simply vote on what they think is include-able. Like we would have all the sections from the old version and see what people think is fit for inclusion. THEN, we look at the sources.
 * The problem with that is twofold:
 * One, you only get some other editors to talk if you add things to the article- stalling is a favorite strategy.
 * Two, those editors will probably see most sections as being not appropriate here (my personal favorite reasons: "that's not criticism of Judaism per se," "that's not what all Jews believe in").
 * It's like Obama trying to pass a law through the House. The GOP will always say NO. "We say the sky is blue; they say No." Nothing will get done, and that's what they exactly want. Now, I am not gonna personally accuse anyone of that, but the presence of these fierce POV warriors is evident for all, and is pretty irksome.
 * I can see me going to the admin noticeboard if things don't change around here.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Kosher slaughter
How is criticism of kosher slaughter a criticism of Judaism? It's criticism of one aspect of Judaism, yes, but not of Judaism generally. To illustrate the point with a recent example, in the debate of circumcision that took place in California over the past few months, people voiced criticism of circumcision as a practice. They were careful, however, to distinguish between their criticism of circumcision and criticism of the Jewish religion. It's true that there were some responses from Jewish organizations that equated the anti-circumcision camp's objectives with antisemitism, but those attitudes aren't enough to objectively classify the critics of circumcision as critics of Judaism. In the case of kosher meat as well, it's WP:SYNTH to claim that critics of kosher slaughter are necessarily critical of the Jewish religion or that the former criticism is a subclass of the latter – unless there's a WP:RS out there making that association.—Biosketch (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Judaism endorses this practice and Jews forcefully campaign for it, it is not difficult to see why criticism of this practice is a criticism of Judaism. It seems to be a criticism of Judaism, because that religion only allows its followers to consume meat slaughtered in such a manor. Are RS which make this link explicit needed? It seems obvious to me. Chesdovi (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the Jewish religion, but I'm thoroughly opposed to Muslim and Jewish customs relating to animal slaughter. That's a perfectly valid statement a person could make to separate the question of kosher slaughter from Judaism generally. Also, the BBC article that's sourced in the citation doesn't associate FAWC's criticism of kosher and halal meat with criticism of Judaism or Islam.—Biosketch (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jewish customs" are inspired by the Jewish religion. I can tell you now that many non-obervant Jews do not adhere to the religious rules of slaughter. The only ones who practice this Jewish custom are the ones who adhere to Judaism. I can't tell the difference. Chesdovi (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jewish customs are derivative of the Jewish religion. That a person's critical of one or another Jewish custom doesn't entail that he's critical of the whole religion. I know that many non-observant Jews don't adhere to the religious rules of slaughter. A non-observant Jew can basically pick and choose what aspects of the Jewish religion he'd like to incorporate into his personal or family life, since he doesn't accept that there's a set dogma according to which he needs to fall into line. That's why a non-observant Jew can make kiddush on Friday night and then drive to a soccer game on Saturday afternoon but at the same time feel no animosity toward Judaism itself. There are many Jews in Israel who get married in civil ceremonies and don't circumcise their male offspring, but they're still proud of their Jewish identity and heritage.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you saying this page should only be about criticism directed against Judaism as a whole, and not just certain aspects of Judaism? Chesdovi (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an untenable standard and I would oppose it, as I'm sure most others would. As I argued above, criticisms of specific sects of Judaism, by other sects, do not belong on this page, but criticism of Jewish practices, that have been part of the religion for much of its history and remain important aspects of the religion to most of those who are observant clearly belong. You can always find someone who claims to practice a religion and does not believe in this or that standard practice. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And let's all remember that Shechita is the most humane form of slaughter and Jews go to heaven for adhereing to it. People against Schechita should refrain from eating meat altogether, and prevent other animals from eating those below them in the food chain. Chesdovi (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to underline what Griswaldo said about the fact that we should not disallow a criticism on the grounds that it is only directed at one aspect of Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues here are that a) it's not a criticism of Judaism, it's a criticism of shechita, about which we already have a lengthy article, including criticisms, and b) Reform is not an "aspect" of Judaism, it is a branch of it, and it does not mandate the use of shechita - therefore any criticism of it would not be of Judaism per se. We've been over this at length in the past, and a large majority of those commenting agreed with these point, though you and Griswaldo did (at the time) disagree, and apparently still do. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that Reform Judaism is a branch, not an "aspect", of Judaism, and if someone said otherwise, I must have missed it. The problem with the argument that a criticism of an aspect of Judaism is not a criticism of Judaism as a whole is that if anyone can find a Jewish source anywhere that disavows that "aspect" then there would be a reason to delete mention of it from this page, even if that disavowal comes from an insignificant fringe view. We'd end up concluding that no one in history has ever criticized Judaism, and blanking the page (which, admittedly, might be what some editors want). Let's note an important distinction: we had some agreement recently in this talk that criticism of one branch of Judaism by another branch of Judaism generally does not belong on this page. Superficially, that might look like another "aspect". But the key difference is that such criticisms accept Judaism, and are instead arguing that the "aspect" is not "true" or "correct" Judaism. In contrast, a critic (generally one outside of Judaism) who says that some aspect of Judaism is wrong is making a criticism of Judaism, even if they regard some other aspects of Judaism as OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, a religion is a collection of beliefs and practices, and even if not every individual or branch believes or practices some number of them, a criticism of those beliefs or practices is a criticism of the religion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shechita is part of the practice of Judaism, and has been for a very long time. The slaughter is performed in a specific way because of religious rules. When this particular manner of slaughtering an animal is criticized it is a criticism of the religion.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I stated above, this is a view that has been consistently held by you and Tryptofish. However, it is only a practice of some branches of Judaism, and a significant majority of those commenting in the past agreed that these kinds of specific criticisms belong in the articles on the specific topics in question. It would be, for example, like criticizing Christianity for its doctrine of sola scriptura - a doctrine that is, in fact, held only by a minority of Christians (specifically, many fundamentalist Protestant churches), or for its practice of ordnung. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(ri) Jayjg, I'm afraid that's a bit unreasonable. If we go down that road, soon we'll have nothing. Additionally, when we removed Noleander's stuff, it was done with the intent to re-introduce that material back. He abused sources/did some OR, but whether it should or shouldn't be included was settled a long time ago on this talkpage. We should be talking about improving those sections, NOT whether they should be here at all (unless there are some major issues). One more thing since you brought up Criticism of Christianity, please go back to the article and tell me whether everything there is criticism of something held by all Christians. In fact, most of the things there are only held by a minority of Christians. For instance: Materialism, "Negative attitudes in the United States," etc. (not even most Christians can be accused of that; what percentage are affluent or live in the US). As far as criticism of "aspects" of Christianity: how many endorse/ have endorsed Colonialism, Slavery, views on women (except Bachmann, maybe! :) ), violence? How about Limbo? Shouldn't that be only in the "Catholic article"? What you are saying is unsustainable and untenable. I would be happy to work with you on improving this article, but these kinds of standards make it very hard. Cheers!  &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 10:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jayjg. The comparison to Sola scriptura is way off. Sola scriptura comes out of a reform movement and is explicitly a belief that divides sects of Christianity from each other. Jay what branch of Judaism rejects Shechita? What branch of Judaism criticizes the practice? Many Christians don't go to church and many Muslims fail to observe Salah, but Christians who don't go to church and Muslims who fail to pray are not rejecting these practices as unworthy of their religion because of their own personal lack of observance. These practices remain fundamental aspects of their respective religions. As I stated already, I do not think intra-religious criticism (that is between sects of the same religion) belongs in the entry. But practices that sit at that root of the religion, which may or may not be practiced by everyone are clearly not the same thing. And Jay, a personal decision to reject a practice is also not the same thing. Unless you can show that specific branches of Judaism reject -Shechita then it is a Jewish practice, and criticizing the manner in which Jewish Law says it should be performed is quite clearly a criticism of Judaism. I do not see the consensus you claim either. Should we start and RfC and invite people from the religion projects to join the conversation? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And, Jayjg, WP:CCC. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, the Reform movement was strongly opposed to Kashruth, including shechita, for much of its existence. Tryptofish, it can, but there's no indication it has. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Reform movement is no longer strongly opposed to Kashruth and in many synagogues, is encouraging following the laws. Their opposition was to nearly all of the rules, and was never clearly opposed to shechita in particular. And, they are clearly no longer opposed to either, based on their statements regarding Agriporcessors.Sposer (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a core Jewish ritual, and I concur with Griswaldo. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It can't be a "core Jewish ritual" if a majority of even "religious" Jews (of whatever movement) do not observe it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, if consensus hasn't changed, I'm listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, most non-Observant Jews do not keep Kosher, meaning most Jews do not keep Kosher, but Conservative and Orthodox Judaism consider Kosher a core principle and Reform is no longer against it. Furthermore, this is about Schechita, which according to Judaism is how to properly and humanely slaughter and the only way poultry or meat can be Kosher. Although I do not have any research to offer, virtually all who do not keep Kosher almost certainly not avoiding the laws due to slaughter methods, but rather due to cultural reasons (be it cost, inconvenience, non-Observant in general, etc).Sposer (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say here. The vast majority of Jews do not keep kosher, or insist on purchasing/consuming meat that follows the laws of shechita, and the Reform movement no longer actively opposes shechita and other laws of kashrut. The fact, however, that it is really only a requirement of Orthodox Judaism (let's be honest, most Conservative Jews don't insist on kosher meat despite the official position of the movement), indicates that criticism of shecita is not a criticism of Judaism, but just a criticism of shechita. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that Kashrut is still a core principle of the religion, including of Conservative Judaism. Although I am told there are some Conservative temples that are not Kosher, I have never been to one. Itis a requirement of Jewish law, whether it is kept or not. My point is that there is no critcism of Kashrut in general, but there is some of schechita. My problem with the critcisim of slaughter practices is more that schechita is meant to be humane and there are some scientists that say it is more humane than other types of slaughter. It is certainly a (misguided) criticism of a tenet of Judaism. Although I don't like it, I think it does belong in the article.Sposer (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing that this discussion is still going on, I decided to look again at each of the sources cited in that section of the page. Not one of them makes the point that it is a criticism of only one part of Judaism. Instead, they all treat shechita and kashrut as being teachings of Judaism broadly. Of course I'm sure that there are other sources out there that would point out the differences in practices, but are there any sources that actually say that the criticisms of Kosher slaughter are not directed at Judaism by the critics who make the criticisms? (If there are, I'd be receptive to citing them.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, unless there's something I'm missing, there's only one source in that section that refers to criticism of kosher slaughter. Secondly, saying that "Not one of them makes the point that it is a criticism of only one part of Judaism" represents a failure of comprehending what WP:BOP entails. To wit, the absence of an explicit qualification to the effect that FAWC is criticizing "only one part of Judaism" can't be interpreted as a positive claim to the effect that FAWC is criticizing Judaism generally. In order for the article to satisfy that claim, a reliable source needs to clearly establish a connection between FAWC and criticism of Judaism, not just of one aspect of it – and the BBC source that's in the section now doesn't do that. Since this still hasn't been resolved, the section's been tagged with Template:Off-topic, reflecting the problem of artificially constructing a context around a source that the source itself doesn't explicitly relate to.—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think this is insupportable. Criticism of one aspect of Judaism is a criticism of Judaism. Aside from saying something childish such as "X is bad", any criticism of pretty much anything will focus on one aspect or another of that thing. In terms of sources, however, you have a valid point. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Biosketch, I don't need anyone lecturing me about the meaning of WP:BOP, thank you. Let me make more clear what I meant when I said of the sources that "Not one of them makes the point that it is a criticism of only one part of Judaism." Let's take them all, one-by-one:
 * : "Muslims and Jews argue that their long established method of slaughter results in a sudden loss of blood from the head, causing animals to feel virtually nothing."
 * : "Germany's main Jewish group". ""The prevention of cruelty to animals has the highest priority in Judaism and prevailed long before animal-protection societies and laws existed," he said in Berlin."
 * : "Both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have specific requirements for the slaughter of religiously acceptable animals." "The Jewish dietary code is described in the original five books of the Holy Scriptures."
 * : "It is the only method permitted by Jewish law and its practice causes no suffering to the animal." "Jewish law requires that animals be treated with consideration, kindness and respect. The Bible (Torah) is the first systematic legislation prohibiting cruelty to animals and mandating their humane treatment. These laws are binding on Jews today."
 * : "a prospect that has its already-diminishing Jewish community accusing politicians of unfairly targeting a fundamental religious practice." (To be fair, the last two sources speak only for the Chabad community.)
 * The point is that none of these sources, most of which are defending rather than criticizing the practice, ever makes the distinction that this kind of slaughter is only a practice of a subset of Judaism. If editors want to include information that this criticism of Judaism is a criticism of only a part and not the whole, the burden is on them to provide a source in which the criticism has been framed in that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unindenting. Agree Tryptofish. It absolutely is a criticism of Judaism, even if it is misguided. However, though Chabad is a source in two of those cites, that is the view of Judaism in general, even those that do not keep Kosher. The belief is that Kosher slaughter is humane, period. It is not relevant that keeping Kosher is not widely observed. All three major branches of Judaism consider it a valid observance in varying degrees, and none have decried the slaughter practice, but rather argue that by Jewish law, this type of slaughter is required SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT IS HUMANE. There is no disagreement of that among any of the branches.Sposer (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those points are well taken. I'm not much for warring over templates, but I wonder whether there might really be consensus to remove the "off-topic" tag that was added to the section. I don't really think that editors should be able to use tags indefinitely to raise doubts about material that they don't like, when they cannot make convincing arguments in talk for their position. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think removing it would be appropriate in a day or so unless there additional objections that can be supported by policy or sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Do any reliable sources describe these as a Criticism of Judaism? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, unless one would seek to divide Jewishness, Jewish values, and Jewish religious rituals from Judaism--in addition to Tryptofish's list above, I think this would work: There may be someone who advocates for banning milah and/or shechita who declares that he/she has nothing against Jews but simply has something against these practices – and this may actually be what this person really believes. This person, though, is still disagreeing with Jewish values. In fighting for the right to observe these practices we are not just fighting for something that Jews have done throughout history. We are fighting for the preservation of the values that really define us. We are fighting for what it means to be a Jew. I suppose one could argue that this is more an editorial, and thus not RS, but I think it reflects a common response in which the criticism of the specific ritual is seen as criticism of the religion. By way of contrast, I would not suggest that criticisms from PETA, for example, are criticisms of Judaism since PETA opposes the slaughter of animals in general. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source that seems to be useful is here:, go to page 58. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I appreciate that we're not edit-warring over the template, especially at a time when a lot of us were occupied with other things. The lead of the article defines "criticism of Judaism" as criticism on theological grounds. The "kosher slaughter" section, however, in its current form, doesn't relate to Judaism at all on a theological level, which is another compelling reason to consider it off-topic in relation to the scope of the article. Whereas the genuinely Judaism-critical views in the article are clearly theologically oriented, and therefore appropriate to the article, there's nothing relating the kosher slaughter section to anything else that's in the article. To be sure, the topic of kosher slaughter probably isn't in itself off-topic, but the examples invoked in the article still are. A quick search for "criticism kosher slaughter" in Google Books does return results that appear to me to give a more historical context to the topic of kosher slaughter in the context of criticism of Judaism, so what needs to be done is rewrite the section in such a way as to reflect the topic of kosher slaughter in its wider context and not just in isolation as something attacked by animal rights groups – who rarely care one way or another about theology or religion, as is the case with FAWC.
 * Here, for example is an account of banning kosher slaughter that may be more relevant to theology/antisemitism in Poland.
 * Ban on kosher slaughter in Argentina in the 1930s
 * Attacks on kosher slaughter from antisemitic French intellectuals—Biosketch (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The "kosher slaughter" section, however, in its current form, doesn't relate to Judaism at all on a theological level. I disagree with that. The method of slaughter is defined in the context of Judaism as a religion, it is a fundamental practice, even if it is not kept by most Jews. I personally think it's a humane practice, and you're right that most who object to it care nothing about whether it is a jewish, islamic, or pagan practice, but to the extent that reliable source show that groups or individuals object specifically to the method of slaughter generally required by Judaism, it is a criticism of Judaism. The FAWC is not objecting to slaughter in general, but rather specifically to the methods specified by Judaism and Islam. And I do not think a complete rewrite is necessarily in order based on what you've said above. Now, that being said, I would welcome additional sources so long as we keep the section short (since we have an article on the topic, and we should keep this a summary). The sources you present are a good start, but I wonder if there's not a more general one we could use, as those are specific to country and period? If the article I referenced above is acceptable as a reliable source, that might do, as the Rabbi does talk about criticism of kosher slaughter as anti-semetic. Does that seem reasonable? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch, those are really good insights, and I thank you for that very much. Reading Biosketch's and Nuujinn's latest comments, I find myself agreeing to a considerable extent with both sides, and I think that we can make some progress based on this. About what Nuujinn said about whether or not the criticism is on a theological level, it seems to me that the thing being criticized (kosher slaughter) is, indeed, something that is justified on a theological basis, but in this case the critics are not framing their criticisms theologically. So it's non-theological criticism of something theological. In fact, it has bothered me for some time that the section places such an emphasis on the views of an animal rights group. (Parenthetically, I think there are multiple pages where Wikipedia puts too much emphasis on animal rights views about things related to Judaism or to the Jewish people, but that's otherstuff.) I don't think it's important whether we regard it as a complete rewrite or as a partial rewrite, but I like the idea of re-framing the section to make it more theologically oriented, and I would like to explore doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Break

 * And I still haven't seen any sources the explicitly describe criticism of shechita as criticism of Judaism. I've seen a small number of sources that refer to shechita as a Jewish practice, or a practice of Jews, or similar things - but that's not at all the same. Judaism is a religions, Jews are a people, and Jewish practices are all sorts of things only particly encompassed by the very broad term "Judaism". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay have you read the sources used in the entry?
 * The first one, from the BBC introduces Kosher and Halal slaughter thus: "Both the Jewish and Muslim religions demand that slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat, rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter." That is clearly not about an ethnic practice or anything else that isn't religion.
 * The second one discusses "Judaism" and offers notable reactions to the critics calling them "anti-religious."
 * The remaining links from Chabad.org are clearly talking about a religious practice.
 * So Jay, may I ask you what you mean exactly? All the sources appear to be talking about criticism of shechita as criticism of "Judaism" the "religion." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think we can keep quoting from the sources, on and on. If, hypothetically, someone like a food critic said that they dislike gefilte fish, that would be something that does not belong on this page, because it is clearly not a criticism of the religion, but rather of a cultural practice of the people. But here, we are talking about a criticism of something that the sources describe as coming directly from religious scripture. Now, please!, let's get back to the constructive discussion I was having with Biosketch. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, let's be specific:
 * Regarding the first one, from the BBC: Where does this article describe the objections to shechita as a Criticism of Judaism? I'm not talking about your intepretation of the material, but what it explicitly says.
 * Regarding the second one: Where does this article describe the objections to shechita as a Criticism of Judaism? I'm not talking about your intepretation of the material, but what it explicitly says.
 * Regarding the remaining links, are they reliable sources, do they discuss these criticism as Criticisms of Judaism, and are they used in this article?
 * And Tryptofish, we actually need to get back to discussing policy, specifically WP:NOR, and the fact that this material violates it; your side-discussions with Biosketch are interesting and all, but Wikiedpai is not a forum. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Life got me busy, so I was surprised to come back and see that there is still a thread discussing whether criticism of Kosher belongs here! It just seems...ridiculous. I mean there are so many other things that could be contested, but Kosher? Seriously now?
 * Anyways, whether Jayjg is on-board or not (and I sure do hope s/he comes around), it seems we have a consensus here, so let's just agree on the format so we can move on to better things and other sections.
 * I'll look through previous edits and will hopefully start proposing entire sections to be scrutinized, discussed and put back. Or if someone wants to do that instead, please be my guest.
 * Cheers, all!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 05:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not that simple, because we don't actually have a consensus on this. We need to find sources that actually criticize Judaism - criticism of shechita belongs in the shechita article. Without such sources the material will have to go, and it's been quite a long time without them being produced. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jay you appear to be stuck in WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT mode. This has been explained to you time after time after time. The sources explicitly say that a Jewish practice is being criticized, and align Jewish with the religion, Judaism. There is no interpretation required here. The entry is not limited to only critiques that are aimed at all Jewish beliefs and practices. No criticism article is limited to critiques of every known aspect of someone or something. Almost all critiques of anything focus on specific aspects of what is being critiqued. The exact phrase "criticism of Judaism" also does not have to appear in the source if that is what you are implying. At this point you are, like a broken record, simply claiming that what everyone else is saying is wrong. There is a consensus to keep this in. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Griswaldo, but it's you who appear to be stuck in WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT mode. It's not that the "exact phrase" is required - it's that the sources themselves don't even remotely claim to be criticizing Judaism. They're all quite clear, in fact, that they're criticizing shechita specifically. I suspect, in fact, that if you asked the proponents if they were criticising Judaism, they would vehemently deny it. Opponents of shechita would insist they have nothing whatsoever against Judaism per se, but merely object to this specific practice, which they rightly point out is not required by all branches of Judaism, and which is adhered to only by a small minority of Jews. You are not only inserting OR into this article, but you are seriously misrepresenting the critics of schechita. You're going to neeed to come up with some sources that actually consider this to be a criticism of Judaism, and pretty quickly, because you've had plenty of time, and come up with nothing but your personal opinions. I've been quite patient, but my patience has limits. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What happens when your so called patience runs out Jay? Sounds awfully ominous that comment. What this boils down to is your claim, and Bus Stop's too apparently, that criticism of a Jewish practice (a pan-Jewish practice not associated with any one sect mind you) does not belong in an article called "Criticism of Judaism." For some rather obvious reasons many of us don't agree with you. Now, you've tried to make this into something else, like a sourcing issue, or OR, but that's an utterly preposterous claim. It's not about OR, it's about whether or not criticism of one aspect of Judaism can go on this page. All the sources plainly state that the practice is religiously Jewish and that people are critical of it. One of them goes as far as to point out that Jewish groups are calling the criticisms "anti-religious" - "Stephan Kramer, general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, dismissed the demand, saying it encouraged anti-religious prejudice." So a German Jewish group is quoted in this source as saying that criticism is "anti-religious" but you don't think this source actually backs the idea that this is "criticism of Judaism?" And you claim your patience is running thin?Griswaldo (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What happens when my patience runs out? Then this material migrates back to where it belongs, rather than where it currently is. And it's not just me and Bus Stop, it's also Biosketch, who started this thread, and if you look through the archives of this article, a half dozen other editors. Anyway, you've stated below you're tired of defending your OR, and you don't plan to provide any sources that directly support the claims, so I don't see the point in responding further here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By my count, eight editors have participated in this talk thread, and Jayjg is the only one who currently objects to including the section, although several of us agree that it can and should be written better. Seven of us agree that it's a straightforward reading of the sources. Only Jayjg says that it is OR. Not a forum? In regard to discussions of how to write it better? Seriously? Griswaldo is correct: we have a consensus here, broken records notwithstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—are you not conceding that no source has been found that equates fault-finding with kosher slaughter with criticism of Judaism? I am referring to your statement that:


 * "The exact phrase "criticism of Judaism" also does not have to appear in the source if that is what you are implying."


 * It is not that the "exact phrase" is not found—it is that no semblance of criticism of Judaism is found—nor is Judaism equated with kosher slaughter. Is Judaism the religion of kosher slaughter? Would that be an apt characterization of Judaism? I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well look at that! A ninth editor has shown up, and agrees with Jayjg, it appears. My advice to Bus stop is to read the lengthy discussion above, instead of trying to parse a single phrase that Griswaldo wrote. The discussion addresses, thoughtfully, the issue of whether it is a criticism of Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you're counting here, Tryptofish. It seems to me that Biosketch, Bus Stop, and I have pointed out that this is OR, while you, Griswaldo, Nuujinn and Aua are claiming it's not. Where did you come up with your seven to one calculation? I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your comment, of course - it's just a poor attempt at bullying. You need to stop with your "broken record" responses, and instead find sources that directly support this, or it will have to go in the article in which it actually belongs. Sources, not personal beliefs. Produce them please. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You left out Chesdovi and Sposer, and you are overlooking how Biosketch's position has evolved. Sources are listed above. As for who is the broken record, the bully, the whatever, I'm confident that impartial editors can judge that appropriately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi commented over a month ago, and mostly to insist schecita is humane. I did leave out Sposer, but that's still not seven to one. As far as sources go, still not one that says anything remotely like these being criticisms of Judaism, rather than shechita. As for the rest of it, next time you'd do better to simply Comment on the content, not the contributor. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for retracting your comment calling me a bully. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure to what you're referring. Have you retracted your comment calling me a "broken record"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for retracting your comment calling me a bully. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not sure to what you're referring - can you clarify? Also, have you retracted your comment calling me a "broken record"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Research? Says who?
I'm tired of answering Jayjg's accusations that the section is original research. Jay the section is part of the status quo and it is supported by more than oppose it. If you want to get support for the idea that it is original research then you are more than welcome either start an RfC or a thread at the WP:ORN. Until such time I will not respond to your claims any longer. They have been answered too many times. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not making claims, Griswaldo, you are, and we need sources, not speeches. If you're "tired", you're free to bow out, but unless you come up with some explicit sourcing for this, the material is going to migrate back to where it belongs. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No Jay no one is "bowing out" to Civil POV pushing. You get consensus and then we'll talk. Until then the status quo version stays. It's as simple as that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay, regarding the sources you are being disingenuous now. I answered you above and you conveniently ignored it. I'm going to copy it again here.
 * What this boils down to is your claim, and Bus Stop's too apparently, that criticism of a Jewish practice (a pan-Jewish practice not associated with any one sect mind you) does not belong in an article called "Criticism of Judaism." For some rather obvious reasons many of us don't agree with you. Now, you've tried to make this into something else, like a sourcing issue, or OR, but that's an utterly preposterous claim. It's not about OR, it's about whether or not criticism of one aspect of Judaism can go on this page. All the sources plainly state that the practice is religiously Jewish and that people are critical of it. One of them goes as far as to point out that Jewish groups are calling the criticisms "anti-religious" - "Stephan Kramer, general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, dismissed the demand, saying it encouraged anti-religious prejudice." So a German Jewish group is quoted in this source as saying that criticism is "anti-religious" but you don't think this source actually backs the idea that this is "criticism of Judaism?"
 * Ignoring what you don't like doesn't equate to evidence not being produced. Sorry Jay.Griswaldo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, regarding the sources, I must regretfully point out that it is you who is being disingenuous now. I pointed out that none of your sources actually came anywhere close to stating that criticism of shechita was a criticism of Judaism., but you conveniently ignored it. I'm going to copy it again here.
 * "It's not that the 'exact phrase' is required - it's that the sources themselves don't even remotely claim to be criticizing Judaism. They're all quite clear, in fact, that they're criticizing shechita specifically. I suspect, in fact, that if you asked the proponents if they were criticising Judaism, they would vehemently deny it. Opponents of shechita would insist they have nothing whatsoever against Judaism per se, but merely object to this specific practice, which they rightly point out is not required by all branches of Judaism, and which is adhered to only by a small minority of Jews. You are not only inserting OR into this article, but you are seriously misrepresenting the critics of schechita."
 * Saying something "encourages anti-religious prejudice" is not at all the same as saying it is a criticism of religion - most things that "encourage anti-religious prejudice" are not criticisms of religion. Ignoring what you don't like doesn't equate to evidence being produced. Sorry Griswaldo. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay now you are mocking me by mimicking my response to you. I've said all I want to say to you. You claimed elsewhere that WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Sure it is when people actually agree that it exists, which isn't the case here. If you remove the section, during an ongoing discussion in which your view is in the minority you are being disruptive plain and simple. When you have something new to say I'll be happy to discuss that with you but until then adios.Griswaldo (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When you make comments pretending there's no issue here and insisting "we" are all moving on, you mock me and all the others who object. There's obviously no consensus for including this insertion, and has never been; if you re-insert the section once it has been removed, despite there obviously being no consensus for its inclusion, then "you are being disruptive plain and simple". When you have some actual defence for the WP:NOR I'll be happy to discuss it with you; until then, feel free to say "adios" and move on to some other article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No Jay, I have not once mocked you however vehemently I have disagreed with your position. The fact that you claim something that can hardly be labelled mockery as that doesn't make it so. You are of course, mocking me once again by throwing my words in my face. Continuing to do so will not make me snap Jay, sorry. However, I as I already noted I do not appreciate it. You still haven nothing new to say so that's that I suppose. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Griswaldo, you have indeed mocked me. You stated that I "appear to be stuck in WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT mode", that I had things "explained to [me] time after time after time", that I am "like a broken record". Those are all direct quotes of your comments to me, both mocking and condescending. That would be the exact point at which the tenor of the discussion changed, and the point at which your own statements became fairly irrelevant, since they were suddenly about contributors, not content. You're reaping what you've sown - and since you've explicitly stated more than once that you've withdrawn from defending this WP:OR, which there is still no consensus to insert, it's time for you to move on. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are observations of, in my opinion, fact. They are stated as observations of what I think is going on. You may not agree with them and you may even experience them as condescending. If you do then I'm sorry to hear that and will try to be more straightforward next time. However, they are not mockery. I did not, for instance, mimic what you said in my replies or repeat your own words back to you. That's mocking. I have no problem with editors expressing their actual concerns to me about the manner I comport myself. But if you are going to do that be genuine about it. I have not withdrawn from defending anything, and I will not succumb to your attempts to wear other editors down. Sorry Jay. This is beginning to look more and more like Civil POV pushing to me. Currently there are more editors who agree with inclusion, at least twice as many. Why have you not posted to the WP:NORN or started an RfC? Those are the community processes you should engage if you want to change that consensus. Showing up once a week to declare that you are right and others are wrong does not accomplish that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the quote I provided? What is your objection to that? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there have been lots of things said - which specific quote? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NOR/N
I've started a thread at the No Original Research Noticeboard to help settle the OR question once and for all, since apparently to some it is not settled. See - No_original_research/Noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After a few days, sadly but predictably, most of the discussion there is between involved editors from here. But I note that the one uninvolved editor (as of this time) has commented that, in general, if we write about criticism of Judaism, one would indeed expect criticism of kosher slaughter to be one of the topics covered. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice that the thread has now been archived. Despite the proverbial wall of text written by editors who were already involved here, the one comment from an uninvolved editor was the one I described just above. Not exactly an affirmation of the claims that the Kosher slaughter material is OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the sources
If one goes to, above, and then scrolls up to just above it, we were in the process of discussing better sourcing for the section. Let's resume that discussion. How should we go about writing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any that directly indicate Criticism of shechita is a Criticism of Judaism? I'd like to see even one. And no, we're not moving on from that point, because WP:NOR is non-negotiable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I want to return to discussing the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see just above. When spokespeople for Jewish groups are calling criticisms of shechita "anti-religious" it speaks for itself. That fact is in a source already in use in the entry. Jay is simply ignoring it.Griswaldo (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see just above. Saying something "encourages anti-religious prejudice" is not at all the same as saying it is a criticism of religion - most things that "encourage anti-religious prejudice" are not criticisms of religion at all. If only Griswaldo would let the source "speak for itself", rather than saying something in its name that it doesn't at all state. The fact is, we still don't have a source. Griswaldo is simply ignoring it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that this topic is still ongoing. Kashrut and shechita are completely and inexorably intertwined with Judaism. It is a core principle, whether a lot of Jews practice it or not. They do not practice it, because less and less Jews follow the religion, not because it isn't a core value of the religion. Criticism of shechita is not only a criticism of Judaism, it is an attack on Judaism and Jewish practices right up there with the people in San Francisco trying to make circumcision illegal. Not all Jews any longer practice circumsion, but it too is a core practice (far more practiced admittedly than Kashrut). It is astounding that anybody could consider it anything but a criticism of Judaism and Islam. The quote does not need to say that it is a specific criticism of Judaism for it to be one. That's like the anti-semite that says I am not anti-Jewish, but I don't want Jews in my country/city/neighborhood. Biosketch makes some decent points on the technicality of the theological points, but so far I have only seen one person (plus Busstop, who was commenting before I was involved) suggesting that it is not a criticism of the religion itself. Besides, although Israelis are not particularly religious, as far as I know, the vast majority keep Kosher, so to say it is not practiced is correct only if one refers to the diaspora.Sposer (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source that discusses criticism of shechita in the late 19th Century as something that explicitly "tried to link Jewish religious practice with animal welfare," resulting in accusations of "antisemitism."Griswaldo (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Jayjg is right that we can't project motives onto organizations that they themselves never explicitly expressed. In the case of FAWC, nowhere do they say that they have a problem with the Jewish religion, Judaism, Jews, or anything of that nature. FAWC criticized a practice on a purely secular level, with no regard for its religious context. Again, there's no indication that they have anything against Judaism or that they care about religion at all. And there's certainly nothing indicating that their criticism is theologically oriented, which is how the lead of our article defines criticism of Judaism. If editors are convinced FAWC's criticism is being misrepresented by those of us rejecting that it's relevant to this article, the onus is on them to demonstrate that FAWC is critical not only of kosher slaughter but of Judaism generally. Personally, I think the pro-FAWC-criticism-of-Judaism camp here should altogether stop trying to put words in FAWC's mouth and presenting them as having any beef with Judaism when FAWC itself never articulated any criticism of Judaism. It'll make the process of constructing an intelligent article the more within reach. So please let's either start building the section from scratch with sources that clearly posit a connection between criticism of kosher slaughter and criticism of Judaism, or at least remove FAWC's off-topic criticism of kosher slaughter and try to find something else that's genuinely critical of Jewish slaughter in a context of criticism of Judaism.
 * Now, regarding the 1893 Aberdeen Shechita Case, the key line in their says, "The case involved key issues of animal welfare and abattoir hygiene. These became complicated with accusations of anti-Semitism as local animal welfare supporters attempted to link Jewish religious practice with animal cruelty." I think it's significant that the language of that passage uses "Jewish religious practice" and not "a Jewish religious practice." In other words, the animal welfare groups – at least per that page – appear to have directed their criticism explicitly toward the Jewish religion. That's very different from how FAWC expressed their criticism which, again, entirely lacked any religious or theological dimension. I don't go back to work for another two weeks, so I can't read past that first page now.—Biosketch (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I get why we should limit the article to clearly theological points, I do not think you need nor should project anti-Semitism on to the FAWC statements (and it is not just FAWC, it is other countries that do not allow or are considering making shechita illegal). Anti-semitism is not part of the argument for inclusion. Jewish ritual slaughter, according to Jewish laws, is theologically required because it is considered to be humane. Those criticizing the practice say it is not humane. That is direct criticism of a Jewish theological position, whether it is purely animal welfare or not. It is also clear from Jewish group responses, that Jewish groups take it as a criticism of the religion. That said, if for some reason the consensus is that one needs to directly state a theological objection, then there is an argument for not including it, although the logic to require a stated theological argument is faulty to begin with. Equally wrong though is to make the argument for inclusion tied to anti-semitism. My point above was not meant to take us down that path. Anti-semitism (or related antis for other religions or peoples) is not a criticism of Judaism -- or others, is a non-ethical belief and should not be part of any criticism article on any religion (i.e., anti-any religion on racial, etc. grounds).Sposer (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well said. I would add that in the case of the FAWC's criticism, the Jewish practices are allowed under a religious exception to the general requirement of stunning. And the source says "FAWC said it wanted an end to the exemption currently allowed for Kosher and Halal meat from the legal requirement to stun animals first" and "Muslims and Jews argue that their long established method of slaughter results in a sudden loss of blood from the head, causing animals to feel virtually nothing. They say they will fight any attempt to prevent a practice required by their religion and central to their way of life." Shechita is an inherently religious practice and the exception allowing it is based on that link to religion. I see no way to separate the religion from the practice or the criticism. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A big part of the reason I have wanted to get "back to the sources" is that I am very persuaded by what Biosketch is saying. Biosketch is right: focusing on this one animal welfare/rights group distracts from the fact that there is a body of sourced information about criticisms of kosher slaughter by people who see the criticism as being criticism of the religion. Something additional that I think got lost in all the nyeh-nyeh-nyeh above is what the Jewish sources (and non-Jewish sources who support the Jewish position) responding to the criticism say. Above, I and other editors pointed out that pretty much all of the sources we already have report that Judaism regards criticism of kosher slaughter as being criticism of Judaism (lengthy quotes above). That should count for a lot. It doesn't matter whether editors do or do not think something is criticism of Judaism, but when reliable sources speaking for Judaism consistently say that a criticism of something is a criticism of Judaism, that's every bit as relevant as what the critics themselves say, especially when the critics may be wary of being accused of antisemitism. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a crack at recasting what we have to more accurately reflect the sources and balance out the some of the POV. I may come round to trim some more, I'm not sure if we need a list of all objections so condensing may be in order. What other sources have information we should include here? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added to the section in an attempt to reflect the discussion here, by taking it away from an emphasis on present-day animal activists, and adding many of the sources that have been pointed out in this talk. I think these changes give some historical balance, and also make a clearer link to criticism of the religion. (I didn't add the source about Argentina, because it seemed to be entirely about criticism on political and economic grounds, and not about criticism of the religion.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Those additions work well, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is FAWC's criticism Judaism?
Editors are still waiting for a source establishing that FAWC criticized Judaism. We have Jewish organizations defending kosher slaughter as an inherent component of Judaism. Those organizations can't be used in this article to characterize FAWC's criticism as being critical of Judaism. In order to say that FAWC is critical of Judaism, a reliable source is needed that characterizes FAWC's criticism as a criticism of Judaism.—Biosketch (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you repeatedly. Criticism of a religious Jewish practice, and one that is pan-Jewish and not simply part of some small sect, belongs in the entry. Criticisms do not have to be about Judaism in totality, and they do not have to contain the words "criticism of Judaism." If you disagree with that perspective then at least appreciate the fact that you are arguing against established convention. See Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, or any number of other "Criticism of ..." entries about all kinds of topics. The fact that Jewish groups are on record as thinking this is criticism of their religion simple adds weight to the inclusion, and to the convention. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this question about FAWC only, or also about the German veterinarians and/or the Dutch political party? Or about the section in its entirety?


 * How is it that the sources can be read as reporting that the Jewish organizations said only that kosher slaughter is an inherent component of Judaism, without also having said that they regarded the opposition to kosher slaughter as opposition to Judaism? How, logically, can we claim that this is "an inherent component of Judaism", while also claiming that criticism of that inherent component is not also a criticism of Judaism? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is specifically about FAWC. That much should have been clear from my title. And no, criticism of a component of Judaism doesn't equal criticism of Judaism by default. Burden of proof applies if editors wish to characterize FAWC's opposition to kosher slaughter as a criticism of Judaism. It's WP:SYNTH to force FAWC into an article on criticism of Judaism where there's no indication that they care the least bit about Judaism. This article is part of a family of articles on criticism of religion. In that context, Judaism is a religion. It's other things, but for the purposes of this article it's the religious dimension that's relevant. FAWC is an animal rights group. It hasn't been established anywhere that they care one way or another about religion. It's completely arbitrary that kosher slaughter, which they criticize, is a feature of religious Judaism, which they don't criticize. If you insist on characterizing FAWC as having criticized Judaism, which they haven't, WP:BOP demands that you supply a reliable source indicating that FAWC is critical of Judaism.—Biosketch (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand your answer, even if I personally disagree with it. Some things on Wikipedia aren't worth fighting about. Given that you say that your concern is only about FAWC, I'm now in favor of deleting just FAWC, not because I think it's the best editorial decision, but because I think it's no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)