Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 11

"on theological grounds"
I wasn't really paying attention to the fact that the lead contains a very odd constriction on the topics that the entry covers. It says that criticisms of Judaism are those made "on theological grounds." I understand that the reverts to that version were an attempt to revert to a version prior to Noleander after that debacle had been settled, but the alternate version included "criticism of Jewish religious doctrines, texts, laws and practices, and their consequences." I don't think that version is perfect by any means, but it provides a much more complete picture of Judaism, which is extremely practice oriented (and not particularly "theological" compared to other world religions). Our own entry on Judaism also says that it "is the 'religion, philosophy, and way of life' of the Jewish people," making this "theological grounds" issue even stranger. Can we change the lead and remove "on theological grounds," and rely on a wikilink to the Judaism entry instead? Surely criticism of something would include all that this something is said to be.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support that in general, but do not really like the wording "criticism of Jewish religious doctrines, texts, laws and practices, and their consequences." Would simply using "criticisms of the religion, philosophy, or way of life of the Jewish people" work, thereby approximating as closely as possible the wording from Judaism. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest looking for some secondary, scholarly references that discuss what constitutes "criticism of Judaism", and basing the description of the scope in the lead on what those sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is useful for framing types of criticism. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On quick first glance, it strikes me as a possible good source for an actual section of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, perhaps, a section on feminist criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would work well, but I also like about that reference is the contrast between motives for criticism of Judaism. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Nuujinn, can you explain why you think a book highlighting a feminist perspective on the Bible is appropriate as an authoritative source for establishing what constitutes criticism of Judaism?—Biosketch (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Biosketch if you are going to revert the edit that supports the position that this section was started in good faith to explain can you please justify your reversion or reverse it? The burden of proof is not on me it is on you. Criticism of Judaism means exactly that, unless you have sources that say that "criticism of Judaism only refers to criticisms of Jewish theology." I will wait for you to answer before reverting you, but you cannot simply impose a perspective that is not supported by basic facts about Judaism or sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Biosketch, why do I think "a book highlighting a feminist perspective on the Bible is appropriate as an authoritative source for establishing what constitutes criticism of Judaism?" Well, first of all, I never claimed it was an authoritative source, but I will claim that a paper about christian portrayals of Judaism written by a "Professor of Religious Studies and former Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland" (see this) is a reliable source which directly treats the subject of this article. Why would would we not be able to use it? And I agree with Griswaldo, please provide some justification for your reversion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Other issues aside, I have no objection to Biosketch having reverted the change to the lead, pending consensus on what the lead should say. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish says:


 * "I'd like to suggest looking for some secondary, scholarly references that discuss what constitutes "criticism of Judaism", and basing the description of the scope in the lead on what those sources say."


 * Good question—what constitutes "criticism of Judaism", consequently—what should be the scope of this article? Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo says:


 * "I don't think that version is perfect by any means, but it provides a much more complete picture of Judaism, which is extremely practice oriented (and not particularly "theological" compared to other world religions)."


 * I see the point, and I reach the opposite conclusion.


 * In the same post Griswaldo goes on to say:


 * "Surely criticism of something would include all that this something is said to be."


 * I do not agree at all. Are we going to include every indiscriminate antisemitic "criticism"?—Obviously we are not. We should be following sources. We should be discriminate. Antisemitism is a fact of life pertaining to Judaism. Just because something pertaining to Judaism has been "criticized" is insufficient reason that we should be including it in this article. Therefore we need criteria for inclusion. Ideally those criteria should be based on good quality scholarly sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, no offense but I find that a rather odious red herring. Clear cut Antisemitism should not be covered in this entry and no one has suggested that it be (I say "clear cut" because there may be gray areas with any given criticism depending on what the sources say.) I certainly have not suggested that and I have not insinuated it either. My point was that a religion is much more than theology. This is a basic fact. Religions include practices as well as beliefs. My point is that criticism of religion will include criticism of religious beliefs and religious practices. Invoking antisemitism in this way, when it doesn't come into the picture at all, is, as I said, an odious tactic. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish says: Bus stop makes some excellent points. By basing the page scope on reliable sources, we get out of the endless loop of editors arguing about what editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As a first step, here are some search results for Google Scholar and Google Books . Caution: I haven't looked at any of these yet, and am not automatically endorsing any of them, just saying that these are places to start looking for sources. And the first result on the Books search is a Wikipedia mirror, so don't use that! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can also look at material that is already in the entry and not disputed. Paul's criticism of Judaism is theological, but it is also a criticism of Jewish practice and of Jewish law. These elements have tended to be wrapped together historically. To orthodox Jews, a criticism of kashrut remains a criticism of Jewish theology, law and practice, even if to the critic its just a criticism of how an animal is being killed.Griswaldo (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. On first look-through, and this is very far from being a complete examination yet, it seems like Paul, feminists, Hegel, and Spinoza seem to come up particularly frequently as recognized critics, along with less-frequent mentions of Nietzsche, Joseph Campbell, Voltaire, and perhaps Palestinians, as well as various intellectuals within Judaism. It particularly strikes me that the page now fails to adequately address feminist criticisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—what source do you have to support that "To orthodox Jews, a criticism of kashrut remains a criticism of Jewish theology…"? Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop I don't have time for your games. As I stated before theology, strictly speaking, is much less important to Judaism in general. That fact, which is clearly known by you, Biosketch, Jayjg, etc. makes the insistence on "theological" criticisms only seem like a disingenuous tactic to limit as much criticism as possible. That said, there is a theological justification at the core of Jewish dietary laws since they are part of the obligations required by God of his people. I'm not about to go digging for sources with clear expressions of this because you and I both know it is irrelevant, given that religious law and practice are also part of Judiasm, whether or not they are theologically justifies. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "theology, strictly speaking, is much less important to Judaism in general" – that's (again...) original research. As indicated above, this article is part of a family of articles on criticism of religion. Theology is therefore the level on which criticism of Judaism manifests itself. But this discussion is vain. If someone wants to propose an alternative definition for "criticism of Judaism" other than what's connoted by the Criticism of religion taxonomic family, WP:BOP demands that they formulate their reasoning with reference to reliable sources. Until that time, any changes that endeavor to undermine what's been undisputed consensus necessarily need to earn consensus – a fortiori when the changes concern the lead. As a constructive suggestion and one made in genuine good faith, I suggest that any changes to the lead be proposed here, with accompanying RSes, so that discussion can ensue and agreements reached.—Biosketch (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not original research at all, it is a claim about Judaism on a talk page. It is either true or false, and you have not claimed either because you know it is true and would rather disqualify it by calling it "original research." By the way you should read about original research because I think you're confused about what it is and where it is found. Have you ever tried looking at Jewish theology, because the page is a redirect to Jewish philosophy. The same is not true for Christian theology or Islamic theology. Try searching for "theology" at the Judaism entry and try the same at Christianity and tell me what you find. My statement, Biosketch falls under "common knowledge." If you absolutely require sources external to Wikipedia I'll be happy to provide them for you. Perhaps you are simply confused about what Theology is, but in that case you ought to do some reading of your own before engaging further in a discussion on the topic.
 * Regarding your claim about the "Criticism of religion taxonomic family" you are completely wrong. The parent entry contains many criticisms that have nothing to do with theology or are less about theology and more about practice. Have you even looked at it? You might be specifically interested in this subsection - Criticism of religion. The entries for Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam also contain a number of criticisms of religious practice, and even criticisms of actions done by religious people in an official capacity. So your argument there is completely off base. Again, if you are confused about what Theology is then I understand, but in that case please do rectify the situation before responding. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously now justifying this original research based on "common knowledge"? Wow. No more need be said on that topic. As for the various personal comments (e.g. "seem like a disingenuous tactic to limit as much criticism as possible", "you should read about original research because I think you're confused about what it is and where it is found", "you are simply confused about what Theology is"), that's enough already. Stick to discussing only article content, nothing else, per WP:TALK and WP:NPA. And finally, what is found in various other "Criticism of religion X" articles is irrelevant to this article, because those articles use entirely different sources (which may actually describe them as criticisms of the religion), or they may also contain original research. Now, please start bringing relevant sources that describe these issues as problems with Judaism. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jay given how you have been behaving here no one is going take your lectures on etiquette seriously. Sorry. Do you deny the factuality of my comments ... you know the "common knowledge" ones (that by the way I backed up with links to our articles here on Wikipedia and said I would gladly back up with external sources if asked)? If you don't disagree with them then your argument is still disingenuous. Regarding the other "Criticism of ..." articles I made that comment specifically to address a topic raised by Biosketch and not by me. He's the one who made claims about the "Criticism of religion taxonomic family" so providing evidence from that "taxonomic family" to dispute his patently false claim was clearly apprpriate. Nice try though.Griswaldo (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, your comment started with a comment about me, so I didn't read further. Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you wish to make comments that are solely about article content, I'll be happy to read and respond. However, from now on I'll assume that all responses containing WP:NPA-violations are tacit agreement with the comment they are responding to, and edit accordingly. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic I would not read half of what you write here, including the very comment I was responding to. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but it isn't really helping you or anyone else. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—you are widening the scope of the article with this edit and this edit beyond just criticism of Judaism. I am opposed to widening the scope from what is strictly implied by the title. Groups and individuals have from time to time argued for the outlawing of what is called kosher shechita. Invariably they do so on the grounds of alleged unnecessary suffering inflicted on animals by a method of slaughter that is employed by some Jews. But that is as far as it goes, and that is where original research enters this discussion: These groups and individuals do not articulate opposition to Judaism. If the groups and individuals opposing the method of kosher slaughter are not expressing any opposition to Judaism then we should not be implying that they are. Criticism of a method of slaughtering animals is not criticism of Judaism. For it to be a criticism of Judaism one would expect a formulation in words that it is Judaism that is being opposed or criticized. That, as you know, is entirely absent. The actual situation is that such groups and individuals walk a fine line in only criticizing the method of slaughter and never criticizing the religion of Judaism. We should not be including in an article on Criticism of Judaism what in fact is never formulated in the words of criticism of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, the shechita issue is being discussed above, and whether or not that content should be included has no direct baring on the phrase "on theological grounds," which you re-added to the entry and what this section is about. Please feel free to make arguments about that actual issue in this thread. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually Griswaldo you have been discussing "the shechita issue" in this thread. You said:


 * "To orthodox Jews, a criticism of kashrut remains a criticism of Jewish theology…"


 * I asked you if you had a source for that. Your reply was:


 * "Bus stop I don't have time for your games."


 * That is illustrative of the problem. There is no source in which we find any individual or group, who opposes kosher slaughter methods, articulating an opposition to the Jewish religion whatsoever. You are misconstruing opposition to a method of dispatching food animals with a "criticism of Judaism". Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow that tops the cake of disingenuous comments. Is that really all that my answer contained Bus stop? I explained to you where the theological connection is, but more importantly why being hung up on that question is irrelevant since Judaism is not merely "theology." Interestingly that point is the actual topic of this thread discussion, but you seem averse to discussing it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well anyway, I think that it will be a good idea to look at what those secondary scholarly and book sources say about this subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—you say "I explained to you", but I think it is important that you provide sources to support your explanations. For instance you say to me "there is a theological justification at the core of Jewish dietary laws" but you also go on to say that you are "not about to go digging for sources". Similarly you wish for me to accept that the objection to the method of slaughtering animals is an objection to the religion—but you wish for me to accept that in the absence of sources.


 * Beyond not providing sources you are engaging in original research. It does not matter, for instance, for the purposes of this discussion, whether or not "there is a theological justification at the core of Jewish dietary laws". That sort of reasoning constitutes original research in relation to the question of whether or not criticism of kosher slaughter is criticism of the religion. We would need to see sources supporting that those objecting to kosher slaughter are objecting to the religion and such sources thus far have not been provided.


 * You have not provided sources in which we see those objecting to kosher slaughter additionally articulating objection to the Jewish religion. If these groups and individuals are not voicing objections to the Jewish religion then we should not be implying that they are by including their complaints in this article. Their complaints seem to be focussed on concerns about animal welfare and not religion at all. We should not be construing them as "criticisms" of the religion unless sources say that. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, this thread is about the phrase "on theological grounds." If you wish to post to the thread about kosher slaughter, a subject that was only mentioned tangentially in this thread, do so in the appropriate place above and I will answer you there. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—it is in this thread you you are posting that "there is a theological justification at the core of Jewish dietary laws" and that to "orthodox Jews, a criticism of kashrut remains a criticism of Jewish theology". Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last time. That was tangential and/or part of a different argument. I will not discuss it anymore in this thread, which is about something else entirely. Not answering your questions about Jewish theology and dietary laws has no baring on this discussion, so I really don't care. I've provided you with a venue where I will discuss this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—let me repeat what I said several posts up in this section:


 * "you are widening the scope of the article with this edit and this edit beyond just criticism of Judaism. I am opposed to widening the scope from what is strictly implied by the title."


 * Please try to address this issue. You did not respond to this point at the previous instance that I raised it, which is linked to above. I have restored the wording that was in the intro in this edit—one reason for that is that you are the only editor expressing support for removing the term(s) theology/theological from the intro. I hope you will use the Talk page rather than revert. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—you also should address, find a source for, or just retract, some of the statements you have made in this section, which you have initiated.


 * Are you an expert on "Jewish dietary laws"? If not, then why do you make a statement like:


 * "…there is a theological justification at the core of Jewish dietary laws…" You don't provide a source even when I ask you to provide one.


 * Similarly you should not be making statements like:


 * "To orthodox Jews, a criticism of kashrut remains a criticism of Jewish theology…"


 * You should be retracting such a statement if you cannot find a source for it. Wikipedia is not a forum. If you are going to make pronouncements of dubious veracity such as those above, they should be accompanied by sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on discussing something that doesn't relate to entry content and ironically mentioning WP:NOTAFORUM to boot? I do not have to retract anything. I've explained why I wrote those things on a talk page, as part of an argument, and have justified them without sources. You are welcome to reject those particular claims, no one is holding a gun to your head saying you have to accept them, and indeed accepting or rejecting them is immaterial to actual discussions of entry content. I've said that already as well, and more than once. You are being disruptive now, and it will not be tolerated ad infinitum. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Violates MOS:LEAD
"On theological grounds" violates MOS:LEAD. The lead is to summarize the entry and the entry contents are not limited to only theological critiques. Even Paul's.Griswaldo (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo—you revert with the edit summary: "Undid revision 457380326 by Bus stop (talk) Undue ... this violates MOS:LEAD ... unless you can prove this with reliable sources we need to summarize the entry. Cheers."


 * From a Wikipedia vantage point, one cannot "prove" something that does not exist in sources. There don't seem to be any sources indicating a scope for an article with a title of Criticism of Judaism. You are removing a term (theological) that would serve to rein in an already poorly-defined scope. I am opposed to a loosely defined or undefined scope for this (or any other) article. You are asking for "reliable sources" but there cannot be any such thing. I do not believe any definition of "criticism of Judaism" can be found in sources, or at least no suggestion has been brought to our attention. Nevertheless I am arguing for a definition of this article. In your edit you are removing the only criteria that was in place. My contention is that this article should be confined in scope to only that which is religious or theological in nature pertaining to Judaism. The present sentence in the lead does not define the scope of the article:


 * "Criticism of Judaism has existed since Judaism's formative stages, as with many other religions."


 * The above supplies no criteria for what is permitted to be included in this article. The lead should be telling us what constraints editors have formulated on what material is permitted in this article. The article suffers from a big flaw in that "criticism of Judaism" is not defined in sources. I think that the best that we can do to make a bad situation tolerable is to write criteria for inclusion into the lead. Therefore I suggest that the lead read as follows:


 * "This is an article compiling religious and theological negative commentary that has been found concerning Judaism."


 * The above is not so restrictively defined that valid material can't find its way into the article, but important criteria are enunciated. Sourcing requirements are also stipulated because a requirement is implied that it is the religion of Judaism that is the primary subject under examination in this article. That is I think consistent with what is implied by the title. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the lead is bad then fix it, but fixing it means actually summarizing the contents, again per MOS:LEAD and not contradicting them. And yes, if you claim that "criticism of Judaism" is something other than, or more specific than "criticism of Judaism" you better have a source for that. Or maybe you have source that says Judaism = Jewish theology ... No you don't? Please stop being disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm new to WP. I'm interested in this topic, but I'm reluctant to try editing it with such editors such as Bus stop constantly pushing to limit every word of criticism in the article.  If you dig a little deeper, you'll see that he has already tried to have the article deleted on the grounds that any and all criticism of Judaism are antisemitic by definition.  Since he wasn't successful in that endeavor, he's made it his mission in life to keep as much valid information out of the article as possible.  It's working, too.  There is a ton of valid criticism that the article doesn't touch on, because all the good editors are busy dealing with the nonsense on this talk page.  I have a busy life, so until WP can figure out how to fairly exclude people who are just being disruptive, I can't really afford to spend time on this. 204.145.225.28 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So well put, sir, it makes me speechless.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if you believe that IP is new to Wikipedia, you believe in the tooth fairy. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, the substance of what he is saying matters more to me. I'd be fairly surprised if you said that some editors are not fierce POV pushers who would be more content with blanking this than expanding on it. You can spot them fairly easily too; they almost never suggest anything to be added (unless it undermines the criticism), AND would always oppose any addition regardless of its merits. They are really pretty unreasonable.
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is why I quit editing Wikipedia about 10 months ago. I still come by, rarely, and correct a vandal and adjust some information if I can do it quickly but my days of major contributions are over.  The anon IP above sums the situation up that is becoming wide spread across all of Wikipedia.  The POV warriors with time and who are paid to work on multimedia are becoming dominate and taking Admin positions.   Priests, ministers, monks, Rabbi's, political consultants, PAC employees, advertising representatives for companies, the retired are the people who can afford to spend their time here fighting for their POV's.  If you are applying for a job in a companies' advertising department having Wikipedia editor on your resume is a plus.
 * Still, it is a testament to Wikipedia's policies that this page is still getting built and what is there is very NPOV. Alatari (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Anderson: it's true.  I am new to WP, inasmuch as I have never substantially edited a single article (beyond correcting a misspelling from time to time).  I'm a long time user, but this just happened to be the very first article I had ever considered making a large contribution to.  The reason for that is that Judaism can be viewed as a foundation for all the Abrahamic religions, and I've been studying what various philosophers have to say (about both the sublime and the dark side) on those religions as a group.  It's really fascinating stuff IMO, but it's not easy to peel the layers and come to grips with some of the concepts.  It would be even harder to write about it while conforming to WP policies, and utterly impossible to do it well with disruptive people trying to ensure you don't.
 * I try not to jump into things without having a clue, so I researched the policies and the history of this page before I ever uttered a word here. It's clear for anyone to see that there's a vocal contingent who won't be happy no matter how well written the article is.  So it's likely that my effort would be wasted.
 * I think it's clear that WP needs to improve its policies to remove people who skate right up next to the line of acceptability on articles like this. In the business world, one way we do that is by measuring results, not intent.  If there could be some objective metrics for the quality of edits on a particular topic, those could be used to give the good editors an edge over the disruptive ones.  I'm thinking about something like slashdot moderator points, except a lot more sophisticated.  I know it's not an easy problem, but until you solve it, I for one think editing pages like this are pointless.  And that's a shame. 204.145.225.28 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(Ri)Your opinion matters a whole lot IP, and your participation is really encouraged. What Anderson did actually violates WP:BITE in the most obnoxious of ways, so do feel free to contribute here. The problem is that adding things from reverted versions will always lead to questions on whether we have the sources (especially print ones, and whether they are presented correctly). Luckily, I am in a position of having access to almost all of them, so that doesn't concern me much. However, you can add whatever you see fit with new/old sources. As per WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:REVERT, it is highly unlikely you will straight up reverted. Please let me know on my talkpage if you need (help with) anything. I am more than happy to provide it. &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 02:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

204: I'm happy to help, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence
Now how about that section from the old version? Anyone think there is anything wrong with it (both ancient and modern)? The sources are solid to me, and are backed by good examples. Cheers &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please let me answer that, in the spirit of avoiding drama and a time-sink. Doubtless, yes, there are things that people will find wrong with it. But we already know that you won't find those things out until after you have already expended the effort of editing the page itself. So, instead, please see my earlier talk comments about starting from scratch, using secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision
Shouldn't this article have at least some mention of the controversies surrounding Jewish circumcision?--Coin945 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there should be, and there was but apparently someone removed it. The previous version implied that circumcision was not painful, obviously it is so.  Circumcision is probably the single truest criticism of Judaic practice there is!  Opposition towards it is growing at an exponential rate both inside and outside of Judaism.  76.65.34.121 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of practitioners of circumcision do not do so because of the tenets of Judaism. Criticisms of circumcision are not specific to Judaism, but rather to circumcision. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, was there ever a vote held on this? 76.65.34.121 (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (I trust Jayjg won't mind if I reply to this question.) Strictly speaking, we at Wikipedia don't "vote" on these things (see WP:VOTE). But the issue has been discussed before, and you can find the most recent discussion at Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 10. Because consensus can change, it is always possible to bring a topic up for discussion again. Please keep in mind that editors sometimes have very strong feelings about such subject matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all, Tryptofish. The IP editor asking about this topic, and focusing on how painful circumision is, uses the same ISP and geolocates to the same location as that used by the IP editor in the previous discussion on this topic. Coincidence? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people use my ISP and my location is a large city. Furthermore many, many agree that circumcision is painful, but I also happen to believe it is medically unnecessary, risky and a violation of the rights of a child.  As Jayjg noted however this is a criticism of circumcision not Judaism and by the looks of things Jayjg has made some progress to acknowledge that criticism of circumcision is in fact valid and of substance.  Although I like this, this does not mean that no reference to the circumcision debate belongs in this article.  What about arguments that Jewish physicians are biased in favour of the alleged circumcision of both Jewish and non-Jewish patients?  This argument was made by Leonard Glick in Marked in the Flesh.  He also happens to be Jewish.  76.65.34.121 (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that more than one of us has made some progress, not that it really matters, as there is nothing wrong with bringing up a concern again. However, I'd be wary of conflating criticisms of physicians who happen to be Jewish with criticism of Judaism as a religion; it treads dangerously close to antisemitic canards, even if it were not intended that way by Glick. Perhaps it would be more productive to consider criticisms of circumcision as it is expressed in the tenets of the religion, separately from its practice outside of the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what brought you back to this after all this time? Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article make no mention
of the issues relating to race within the Talmud ?

the anti Gentile language in many parts of the Talmud have been noted and pointed out by everyone from Martin Luther to Avicenna for years and years.

yet not one mention on this page?

I know without even looking in the criticism of Islam page there must be a section on the Koran and infidels.

should there not be a section on Judaism and gentiles?

I would think with so many well known Rabbi's and Israeli officials, openly espousing anti Gentile racist remarks, there would be cause for an article like this?

if this has already been covered, direct me to where it has been discussed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savakk (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The page has had a lot of history of subjects being added and then deleted. But perhaps the answer to why there is no mention is the rather banal one that no one has gotten around to sourcing and writing it, with no other agenda beyond that. It would be very helpful if you could provide some specific sources of the sort to which you refer. If the sourcing is there, it could certainly be added to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

On "philosophical criticism", the mention of Thomas Jefferson's criticism.
It is misleading, Thomas Jefferson's criticism, is not in fact a criticism of religious/orthodox/pharisees.(His criticism being, that the concept of "The Afterlife" among Jews is not universal. )Reasons why it is misleading: A. Since this article seems to be a criticism of the Orthodox Jewish sect or the descendants of the "Pharisees", then there is no criticism, for all orthodox Jews believe in the afterlife. He was criticizing people like Baruch Spinoza, who was most definitely not orthodox! Here is the reason why all Orthodox Jews believe in Afterlife: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.33.240 (talk • contribs) 05:47, December 4, 2013‎


 * Thank you for addressing a very nuanced aspect of the Jewish religion. The link you provide explains that the concept of an afterlife plays a much less dramatic role in the Jewish religion than either Christianity and Islam. Whether Jefferson (or Kant) was correct in the criticism of Judaism isn't the point. It's still an historical fact that they were critical, in a gentle way, of certain aspects or an emphasis of the Jewish religion but not disrespectful of the Jewish people.  Jason from nyc (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree Jason, but shouldn't the article at least make some mention that the misleading criticism is in fact wrong? Saying that Jews don't believe in an afterlife is a blatant lie. If one chances upon this article who is completely ignorant on the topic and is not the research type of person, then they will now think that this statement issued by someone of the stature of T. Jefferson is valid which in fact it is not. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.33.240 (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I made it clear that it was Jefferson's view. While the article is not the place to explain Judaism's complete theory of the afterlife, I added a link to one of the wikipedia articles that goes into that subject. Of course, I leave it to the editors of that article to get it right. You might want review that article, too. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)