Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 7

Possible root cause: What doth "Criticism" mean?
I believe that much of the argumentation here is revolving around different uses of the term "Criticism". What should criticism mean in the context of this article: I think a review of Criticism of religion (of which this article is supposed to be a daughter article) indicates #2 significantly more than #1, but perhaps there is a #3. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Anything negative
 * 2) Scholarly analysis
 * 3) Something in between - please define


 * There's no hope for a decent article here if we do not use definition #2. We're not obliged to include everything, and I think there's little need for including anything and everything negative here. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I would say criticism is the act of analyzing and evaluating, whether positively or negatively, the merits and quality, along with accuracy, of something. Silver  seren C 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everything is scholarly analysis, as not all criticism comes from scholars. Silver  seren C 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this article the criticism must come from a scholarly source or else it isnt an RS and I'll take each and every single source to the RS/N and we can see what happens there. You cant use Hitler and neo-nazi slander against Judaism as a RS for a criticism of Judaism. Just because somebody says "I criticize Judaism for ...." does not make it a RS for this article. Perhaps you may want to talk to User:Blueboar on what RS really means before you continue Silver.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely false. Critics can be laypeople, activists, journalists, leaders of "competing" religions, oppressed people, or normal Joes.  You may be confused by WP's WP:Notability guideline, which applies to entire articles;  or maybe by the WP:RS requirements, which means that sources must be accurate and reliable.  There is NO RULE anywhere that says that the critics must be scholars.  You may also be confused by the mention in the WP:RS policy that _suggests_ that scholarly sources are preferred, but that is a suggestion and applies to the sources (citations) not to the original critics.  On the other hand, it is true that trivial/one-off criticisms do not belong in this article, and therefore, it is appropriate to limit criticisms to those that are discussed by secondary sources (for example, if PETA complains about kosher slaughter, that is not enough;  but if a group of Rabbis writes a formal reply to PETAs concerns, that is a secondary source, and gives the criticism sufficient weight for inclusion).  Noleander (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * Silver, you are correct that not all criticism comes from scholars, but as a scholarly term, criticism has a rather narrow definition, see for example Literary Criticism. -- Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I really dont see why this article must only contain scholarly references. yes, the word "criticism" in scholarly work, has a precise meaning, but nearly every word in academia has a precise meaning, i believe. This is not "scholarly criticism of judaism", its "criticism of judaism". if a highly ranked religious figure were to convert to judaism, then come out with a statement of his concerns about the religion, it would be a)not sholarly (unless his statement was published in a peer reviewed journal), b)not antisemitic (unless someone could prove he was doing this out of malice), and c)highly notable criticism of judaism. i doubt this will happen, but its an example of how we can have notable critiques from a nonacademic source. if by scholarly, people mean LEARNED, then i would tend to support most sourced material coming from learned people, not necessarily academicians. I really dont think we can put too precise a definition on what is sourced here. it must exclude bad faith critiques (ie antisemitism), simply because we have an article on that already. it must be sources which are notable (so mostly from people who already have articles), it must be directed at parts of judaism with a some indication that this is a criticism of judaism, and not a critique, say, of israel, or a jewish person. I know this would make this a very open ended article, but thats how i see the topic. i dont see it as a ending up a listing of critiques of sections of the tanakh, in chapter order. I would support, however, reformatting this article to cover the subject historically, with major critiques organized by time period.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is it your opinion that antisemitic lies such as deicide and blood libels belong in this article? Or are they not "criticism" but "canards" and are appropriately handled elsewhere? -- Avi (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously Mercury will still have to answer, but let me just say that, considering that it is even mentioned in the lede, it makes sense to have a section titled "Antisemitic canards" and discuss in relation to that. I also have no problem with putting the article in a time period order, since that's what the lede seems to imply it is anyways. Silver  seren C 05:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Silver, you have made your opinion clear above; I strongly and firmly disagree with it. Furthermore, no lede is sacred, and it is clear from the AfD that the content of this article needs extreme care, if not a complete rewrite. Now it is time to let others talk. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead wasnt brought down by Moshe from Mt Sinai; it can be changed. It summarizes the article, the article does not have to be what is already in the lead, we can change the whole thing. Lets pretend the article as it is and as it has been in the past has been deleted forever (if only!) and we have to start from scratch. Let us please put aside our preconceived notions of what the article must be "because this is already there" and find compromises on how to structure it. It seems perhaps the first thing we can all agree on is to structure it in a historical timeline type format. If Avi, Silver, and everyone else agree on that we can move on to the question of anti-semitism. Which I believe since there's already an article on that that we do not cover it here but have a hatnote directing people to that article should they be looking for that topic in particular. Policy is quite clear we dont have duplication of articles.Camelbinky (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SUMMARYSTYLE is not a duplication of an article. We would still have to use our own words for the summary, with references, but it would be a place where people could find a link to the actual article, because it is tangentially related. It i likely that this is one of the places a reader would look for such a subject. Silver seren C 06:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only tangentially related if "criticism" is defined to include "false antisemitic filth". I do not believe that is what criticism means, nor do many others, Silver. -- Avi (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think saying "false antisemitic filth" shows that this isn't a topic you can look at neutrally. :/ Silver  seren C 08:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you saying blood libels are true, or are you saying that even if they are false, they are not worthy of disgust, disdain, and horror? Please clarify so we can bring this to WP:ANI and get a larger more complete view of whom here has the POV issue. The only people I know who give any credence to this filth are out-and-out antisemites. I sincerely hope you are speaking out of ignorance and inexperience, and not belief. -- Avi (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this article has to make a clear distinction between criticisms from anti-semitic sources, and criticisms from relatively unbiased sources, or from within judaism (and having a section for a separate group, "lapsed jews" or "apostate jews", like jews for jesus). i think it is necessary to make a brief statement in the article describing the difference, and provide a small section with some antisemitic canards, to contrast with more legitimate criticism. I would suggest that we be very careful about presuming sympathy with these canards on the part of any editor. in theory, though, an editor who actually believes the canards could edit here, if they truly knew how to distinguish personal from sourced NPOV. I undoubtedly have some personal views on Judaism which would upset some Jews (sort of gave that away by the thrust of my language here, obviously in the reform/renewal camp opposite orthodoxy). our beliefs should not be a litmus test, but if the interfere with our ability to edit neutrally, or to assume good faith, we need to pull back. i myself am probably going to pull back from this discussion if it gets any more heated. its hard enough to figure out how to actually improve this article, without having this much heat to contend with. Seriously, even with all the emotions aside, this is a damn difficult project, and i am not a veteran of this kind of global improvement of articles. i usually act as a wikignome, making small improvements and creating stub articles. I can THINK about how to improve an article, but the sourcing, restructuring, and rewriting is extremely daunting to me. i hope i can at least help it forward in my own small way.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinon, no-one should pull back, Mercury, even editors with whom I vociferously disagree (such as Silver and Noleander). Quashing reasonable discussion will only hurt the project. In discussions, only vandalism, harassment, or other such violations should be quashed (and I fear that AzureFury may be going down that path; I hope I am wrong). My hope is that increased discussion will demonstrate a consensus to have the canards and libels discussed in articles that focus on canards and libels and not be given even the veneer of respectable criticism that inclusion in the article would provide, but that is no reason why we should not discuss the issues. However, Silver has demonstrated (by virtue of his ANI posting) that he is very concerned about who may edit here, and my opinion is that someone who wants to give credence to historically inaccurate causes of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (a study of the Crusades would be appropriate here) as "criticisms" of religion may be allowing his or her personal point of view (which we all have) to possibly color and interfere with the strict adherence to policy and guideline (including scope) that we all need to edit, especially on very contentious articles such as this. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we include a strongly worded statement, sourced from reliable, neutral scholars and commentators, that there is a huge, gaping chasm between good faith criticisms of judaism and antisemitic canards, i believe it would help to deflate those canards. I think there is adequate commentary in the real world on just this division, so it, along with a lot of the criticism sections here, are not original research, though i do support better sourcing for all the sections, and especially for the idea of this article as a topic in the real world being sourced (rushkoff is one example of someone taking on the whole subject, not just a single issue, and i know there are others). Thanks for your excellent comments on inclusiveness here. thats very welcoming, even if i suspect we disagree (i have trouble keeping straight all the arguments here, so i try to not "figure out" people, its not my strong suit).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue of antisemitic canard vs criticism has been discussed before on these Talk pages. The distinction is that canards are false statements made with the purpose of promoting bigotry. Criticisms are based on truthful observations about the religion (or at least what the critic believes to be truth) and promoting bigotry is not the primary purpose. All of the 16 criticisms listed above are clearly not antisemitic canards. Noleander (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--

The sixteen issues you brought each have their own problems, please see and  for more detailed analysis of their particular issues. However, we are not discussing your list of 16, we are trying to handle more broad and more basic issues first which would affect which of the 16 would be eligible for discussion and which would be out of scope even prior. See the previous section, and perhaps there will be other more basic questions. We have our hands full with these two already. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets stay on topic please. All previous discussions do not matter. We are starting from scratch on the broadest possible question. Frankly I dont know what the 16 criticisms being discussed are and they arent relevant.Camelbinky (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be clearer: I don't think antisemtic canards belong in this article, except perhaps (1) a brief sentence in the lead paragr that distinguishes canard from criticism; and (2) a See Also link.  The canards are already discussed in great detail (in Summary Style!) in article Antisemitic canards.  This article should use WP:Summary style on the criticisms (which I define as (1) based in truth; and (2) not primarily to promote bigotry).  About the only borderline example Ive seen is "Jews killed Jesus" which is both a canard and a criticism, but we shouldn't let that one example throw-off the discussion.  Noleander (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--

At the top, Avi suggested that maybe we should use "#2 significantly more than #1, but perhaps there is a #3". I see it along those lines too, in the following way. I reject the claim that only scholarly sources pass WP:RS, but there are certainly plenty of potential sources for this page that are totally WP:FRINGE. Thus, I see the right way to balance this as pretty much exclusively #2 and secondary sources to establish notability for an individual entry on the page, but some acceptance of primary #1 sources to document the original statements of the criticism, subject very much to WP:UNDUE. So a reasonable section of the page could look something like: "Primary, non-scholarly source has criticized Judaism over X. First scholarly, secondary source has traced this criticism to such-and-such. Second scholarly source has rebutted the criticism because Y." And so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with Trypofish.  The requirement of secondary sources will exclude all fringe and one-off criticisms.  I would, however, expand the acceptable scholarly sources to include historians, religious leaders, theologians, academics, notable press, etc. Examples of sufficient secondary sources would include:  a leading rabbi issues a rebuttal to a criticism, even thought the rabbi is not a professor at a university;   a biographer documents and analyzes a criticism in a respected biographical work; the Anti-Defamation League issues a position paper addressing a criticism;   the New York times or Newsweek writes an article about a given criticism.  --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bereshit
I started this section with this name (some of you know it as the book of Genesis) since it is not only the first book of the Torah (and the Tanakh, and the Bible) but also the very first word as well. Let's begin with the beginning and shine light on the darkness. So here is my proposal-
 * We have multiple threads going on talking about different things, and new topics becoming threads because of what is said on the thread above... We need to start over. Start this thread, and have this one thread going, close out all others. Start with the most broadest question over this article and as we resolve it, we identify the next two or three broadest questions and tackle each one in succession, then the next more narrow question, until we are down to such minor narrow issues as an individual verb in a particular sentence. Why? Because its hard to answer a question like "is this point from this source good for this article?" before we even know the scope of the article of if the name of the article should change, and what exactly the current name of the article actually means! So... what is the most broad question about this article and can we be dedicated to discussing just it until resolved. I for one am prepared to actually discuss it and come to a consensus before moving on.Camelbinky (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the broadest question be, what are the main, most important sections that the article should include, with other less important sections being able to be added later after everything else is figured out? Silver  seren C 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the broadest question is what I asked above in. Once we decide upon what is criticism, we then can decide upon what is the Judaism referred to in the article. Once those are decided, I would hope that much of the issues would be agreed upon and then we can handle individual issues. -- Avi (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Mercurywoodrose explained criticism in a way I agree with. Silver  seren C 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mercurywoodrose's explanation as well. The emphasis on "learned" criticism suits me, and I think the point that the article should exclude "bad faith" criticisms since those can be covered in the anti-semitism article is very good. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are proposing a 3rd option (see ) where the criticism need not be scholarly, but it certainly does not include every negative statement. I think we need to clarify what kinds of statements are permitted. In general, I would have been very happy using the Potter Stewart test, but knowing the history of editors on this article, if the parameters are not clearly stated, thy will be violated. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with starting with "What does criticism mean?" but I would re-phrase it as "What is the scope of the article?" since the whole point is to define what _this_ article is about. My proposal for the scope is (1) it include negative criticisms about the religion; (2) Limit to only include criticisms that are discussed/analysed by secondary sources (which are generally - but not always - scholarly/academic) ... that limitation would exclude one-off criticisms;  (3) The article cannot limit itself to "scholarly" or "learned" criticisms, since many critics are not scholars (e.g. when a parent complains that circumcision is painful and unnecessary; or when PETA complains that kosher slaughter is inhumane);  (4) antisemitic canards (i.e. false statements designed to promote bigotry) are excluded. Noleander (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * But we can limit the content to criticisms that have a scholarly intent and tone--as an example, wikipedia suffices, as most editors are scholars but we hold ourselves to a standard of writing and expression. I agree that we could include 1 and 2 and should exclude 4 from your list. I'm on the fence about 3, however, since the two items you mention are not at all restricted to judaism (peta views all slaughter of animals as inhumane, and circumcision is a fairly widespread practice). -- Nuujinn (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What WP policy limits primary sources to "scholarly"?  You may be getting confused by the WP:Reliable source policy which requires that _sources_ be reliable (and incidentally suggests that "scholarly or academic" sources are best).  Many primary source critics of religion are activists, journalists, laypeople, members of competing religions, oppressed people, minorities, and just every day humans.  Their criticisms become worthy of this encyclopedia when they gather enough mass so that secondary (generally scholarly) sources take note of the criticism and comment upon them.  But limiting the primary critics to "scholars" ... no, that would disenfranchise too many (example:  homosexual minorities (non-scholars) complaining about treatment by religious authorities).  Noleander (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * ... and I dont understand you points about kosher slaughter and circumcision. Are you suggesting that a criticism that is levied against 2 or more religions cannot be included in the "Criticism of someReligion" article for any of the religions?  That is not logical.  Several of the "Criticism of someReligion" articles have sections on "Women are treated as inferiors" or "Women cannot be priests/leaders" or "Homosexuals are treated poorly" or "Blacks are treated in an unfair way".  Your suggestion would lead to those significant criticisms disappearing.  Please be more rational.  Noleander (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * I'm not talking about limited sources to scholarly works. What I am suggesting is that we limit the topics in this article to criticisms which have a certain gravitas, for lack of a better word. In regard to other articles, other stuff exists, so I'm not really concerned with them, at least at the moment. I'm not locked to a particular view on your point number 3, but it seems silly to me to include Peta's view as a criticism of judaism, since it really has nothing to do with the religion per se, and is rather part of their view against the use of animals as food in general. "Women cannot be priests/leaders" or "act of homosexuality are prohibited by religious texts" seems reasonable, tho, since those are related to the "rules" of a religion. But those are details really, and I do not mind conceding on the issue at all. -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that trivial/one-off criticisms should not be included, and yes, a certain level of "gravitas" is required. My proposal - which I think would eliminate lots of future arguments - is a clear litmus test of the gravitas:  We should only include a criticism if secondary sources (preferably scholarly/ academic / religious / historians) document the criticism and comment on it.  Thus, the critic's own pronouncement would not be sufficient:  it would acquire gravitas only when, for example, leading rabbis respond to the criticism (or similar secondary sources).  Noleander (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference, at least in my opinion, between criticizing specific individual laws and critcizing how the religion may address a class of people. We have articles on the latter (LGBT topics and Judaism, Jewish feminism, Gender and Judaism, Women in Judaism, Women in the Bible, Same-sex marriage and Judaism, etc.) However, summary-style, I can conceive of those being brief entries with see-alsos. Discussing specific laws becomes subjective and overwhelming, not to mention they are a crticism of teh laws themselves not the religion. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you are saying that you concur with making this article WP:Summary Style and having some "summary style" text/info, and letting the other "main" or "seeAlso" articles contain most detail? I would agree with that part of your comment.  And that may be a major breakthrough :-) Noleander (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been against a summary style article, Nolaeander. I've always been concerned about what I see is the hyper-expansion of the article by including material that is either 1) not a criticism 2) not a notable criticism or 3) not a criticism of Judaism the religion. Originally, I opined to keep the article. I changed to delete after it was demonstrated by Jay that almost everything in the article at the time was out of scope. However, I have never argued that criticisms of Judaism the religion do not exist, so if we can achieve a consensus about appropriate material in a summary style (I originally preferred the Disambig style, but that really is not appropriate per wiki policies, I think), that would be wonderful. But, in my opinion, and the opinion of many opiners of keep on the AfD as well, the article in its largest form was bloated and contained numerous out-of-scope entries that should not have been in the article, so unfortunately, I think we will need to prepare ourselves for a months-long process clarifying first major scope (see above) and then specific entries. -- Avi (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a way forward would be to see if there is consensus for converting this article to summary style for all of the subtopics which have an article devoted to them. Then perhaps holding RFCs for the other subtopics and any additions? -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst a good idea, that will not be sufficient, IMO, as Antisemitic canards and Jewish deicide have articles devoted to them and I believe they are out of scope. Similarly, Shechita and Brit Milah have articles devoted to them, but the criticism is out of scope as the criticism more properly is applied to Legal aspects of ritual slaughter and Circumcision respectively, not of Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it, Avi, that you're objecting to the mention of these topics at this article, yes, even in, say, a "See Also" section? `` Nuujinn (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My current understanding of wikipedia policies and opinion of the subject matter at hand, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise by sound and reasoned arguments, is that the canards are not "criticisms" of Judaism at all, merely baseless fabrications and excuses used historically to justify mass murder, and as such are out of the scope of this article. Furthermore, I believe that giving them mention in any form outside of absolute repudiation in an article purported to discuss religious criticisms gives them the veneer of respectability that is undeserved and unjustified. -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Would you agree that converting the article to a summary style article would be a reasonable start, if we start some RFC sections regarding inclusion or exclusion of particular items, starting with Antisemitic canards and Jewish deicide. Personally, I do not care much one way or another if they are mentioned in this article in a minor way, say an info box or related articles section, or are not mentioned at all, but see no reason for anything more than that given they already have articles of their own. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the topic of antisemitic canards: I believe that only one editor (Silver seren?) has proposed including them in the article and perhaps we could revisit the issue with him/her and see if they are willing to drop the suggested inclusion.  Then the issue would go away.  The only "borderline" criticism that may be both a criticism and canard is Jewish deicide but we can defer discussion of that.   Silver seren:  what do you say?  Noleander (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would rather we hash out larger scope questions first (see the few sections above) before we start discussing individual sections, but I am only one editor of many. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hear you. I'm just concerned that the larger questions are harder to get consensus on, but I'm new in this neck of the woods. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Common Ground

 * Common Ground - I think it is best if we agree to the "top level" issues first: (1) what is the format of the article (e.g. full-blown article, WP:Summary Style, WP:List, etc); and (2) what is the scope (i.e. a workable, reasonable definition of what is included/excluded).   Addressing individual issues (slaughter, discrimination, etc) at this point is distracting and counter-productive.  Towards that end, there may be some common ground starting to emerge, perhaps we can agree on the following:
 * The article will exist
 * The article will be WP:Summary Style
 * Most detailed information will be in the other topic-specific articles (e.g. Brit Milah or whatever)
 * Criticisms will only be included in the article if they meet some test (yet to be determined) for significance/gravitas
 * All content in this article must be phrased in a neutral manner and must include balancing or contextual information to ensure that readers get the full picture.
 * Does that sound reasonable? Noleander (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things. That the article will exist is no longer in question.  Any petulant children who want to try and game the system by requesting a third AFD should just excuse themselves from this article, and probably Wikipedia in general.  The other point is that we can't follow policy by coming up with a test.  It would be original research if we did.  Suppose the sources criticized Judaism explicitly in some way that did not satisfy our test.  Our test would force the exclusion of material that the sources implied should be included.  This is exactly what WP:OR and WP:NPOV were designed to prevent.  Our only test should be "is this how the sources criticize Judaism?"  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About common ground, I very much appreciate what Noleander outlined just above. For the last few days, when I checked my watchlist, I found so many comments in this talk that I had to expand the edit history of this talk page to 100 edits to see all the diffs in the last 24 hours. Blech! Today, I didn't have to. Maybe that's because some of the more hyper-caffeinated editors have become tired, but I'd like to think it reflects some actual progress towards common ground. Where Noleander says that we have yet to determine the test for inclusion, I'd put in a plug for heavy reliance on secondary sources and attention to WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:V as opposed to "truth". We'll have to see case-by-case how much of a summary is enough or too much. But to the question of whether it is reasonable, I say "yes". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there will be fewer comments from me for the next few days, Shavuot starts at sundown so I'll be offline for a while :) -- Avi (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some quick comments though:
 * Agreed, there is no consensus at this point for the article to be deleted.
 * Best available option in my opinion
 * Agreed, however, I think the example brought Brit Mila may be out of scope (see above for various discussions) about which we will have to debate/discuss later. But I agree to the spirit of the point (for example Gender and Judaism ).
 * Agreed
 * Agreed
 * Overall, I think that Noleander's architecture is reasonable, I understand that we will have some merry discussions on specific building blocks (to continue the analogy). Unfortunately, only four people commented on the proposition, and many vociferous editors have not done so, and, if I am correct, wont be able to for the next 48 or so hours FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Tryptofish's comments. AzureFury, I can't speak for Noleander, but I do not believe that the "test" would be purely mechanical, but rather some set of criteria we could agree on so as to guide our discussion about whether a particular topic warrants inclusion in this particular article, following the guidlines found in WP:UNDUE. For an example, I'd suggest that it's not necessary to include topics in this article if those topics already have an article, eg. Antisemitic canards and Jewish deicide. Of course, WP:OR and WP:NPOV would apply as always. But we can certainly leave decisions what kind of criteria we might use for later--it would nice if we could achieve consensus on Neolander's points. Given that the article will exist, can you accept the rest of points with the understanding that we'll avoid WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations in coming to consensus on particular topics to include in this article? And Avi, I think it should be understood that we won't be making any major decisions during a holiday when interested parties won't be on line. -- Nuujinn (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this kind of decision making is an invitation for all kinds of WP:OR arguments. Here are your criteria:  "do the sources say it."  That's all that matters.  Our discussions should surround interpreting the sources, not interpreting the validity of the sources' positions.  We don't get to decide whether or not Jewish Deicide deserves to be included in the article, the sources do.  Do they criticize Judaism in this way?  Honestly, I think it would do more harm than good to start rejecting material that is supported by sources, reliable or not.  I'll probably catch some shit for this, but I would include antisemitic arguments that are sufficiently mainstream.  Not to disparage Jews or spread racism, but to give an opportunity to trash such nonsense theories.  If criticisms are mainstream, their responses are mainstream, and easy to find.  We change minds by explaining and refuting, not censoring.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse the last sentence of Azure's comment. It's ironic, I guess, that I can simultaneously agree with Noleander's suggested approach and also agree with Azure's concerns about it. I suppose that when we are talking about criteria that are yet to be agreed to, it's easy to see what one wants to see, but I have been adamant all along that we decide based on sources, with attention to UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the main points of Summary style, Nuujinn, is that they link to the other main articles. If the topics already have another article, that's perfect, because we can summarize and link to them. Silver  seren C 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly, but please see above my conversation with Avi and Avi's comment at 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)--there is some objection to the mere mention of some potential topics that have articles.
 * AzureFury and Tryptofish, am I correct in my understanding that you both agree with all of Neolander's points except for "Criticisms will only be included in the article if they meet some test (yet to be determined) for significance/gravitas"? Clearly, choices must be made in regard to what is included and what is not. Using Jewish Deicide as an example, would either of you have a source in mind that warrants inclusion in this article? I'm more of a concrete example person, and it would help me understand your concerns better. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, I appreciate the concrete example approach too, and I'll try to answer your questions to me as best I can (which may not be that well). I basically agree with all of Noleander's points, with two caveats. A minor caveat, with respect to summary style, is that some topics will require only the briefest of summaries while others will require more depth, and we will decide that later on a case-by-case basis. The more significant caveat does, indeed, have to do with that test "yet to be determined". Obviously, when we "agree" to something that is yet to be determined, there is a risk that we will cease to agree when it is determined. I'm advocating what I have already said should be the "test": reliance on secondary sources, subject to UNDUE, and verifiability rather than editor opinion. Do it that way, and I'm likely to support; do the contrary, and I'm likely to oppose. As for the deicide thing, I haven't been working on this page long enough to be familiar with sources. At this early (for me) point, I would regard it as an antisemitic canard that lacks the due weight to be treated as a criticism that gets in-depth coverage on this page, but which may well be worth a brief mention in summary style as a canard. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, thank you for that clarification. I agree that whatever guides decisions to include or exclude specific topics would have to be subject to policies. I also anticipate much lively discussion on these topics, but my hope is that the framework Neolander has proposed will provide stable ground for continued progress when grappling with such issues.
 * AzureFury, any thought on this or my question regarding concrete examples? -- Nuujinn (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right now to go hunting for sources, but Noleander says he's been finding them for months. I'm sure he's got somethin to show you.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some primary sources (that is, the critics themselves) include:
 * Ancient Christians (complaining of persecution) e.g. Paul of Tarsus (Saint Paul)
 * Medeival Christans (see Disputations)
 * Ancient Jewish or Christian polemicists (Nicholas Donin, Justinas Pranaitis, Abner of Burgos)
 * Philosophers / Pantheists (Baruch Spinoza, etc)
 * Leaders of reform movement (see Reform movement in Judaism)
 * Islamic polemics
 * Modern Christian evangelicals
 * Minority groups within Judaism (e.g. feminist and homosexual activist groups)
 * Animal rights activists (e.g. PETA)
 * Secular/activist Jews (Israel Shahak, Douglas Rushkoff, etc )
 * New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc)
 * For secondary sources (that is, sources other than the critics which comment upon the criticisms) they are too numerous to list. Some can be found in the footnotes of the April 7, 2010 version of the article, which is available here .  Disclaimer: the above list is not intended to suggest that those sources are all appropriate for inclusion in this article, but rather is intended to give editors a place to start if they want to do some research. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that pointer, I'm sure it will be helpful. Since I asked about about sources relative to Jewish deicide, I'll propose something relative to that. I suggest that it does not warrant inclusion in this article as anything more than a wikilink in an infobox or See also section for the following reasons:
 * There is already a substantial article on the topic, so not treating it here does not represent a loss of valuable information to Wikipedia.
 * The criticism is leveled against Jews, and not against Judaism. Logically, the particular Jews the charge is leveled against have been dead for a couple thousand years, but primary sources do not appear to level a charge against the religion, but rather the people, whether in a narrow or broad sense. Thessalonians 2:14-15, for example, refers to "the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus", and does not mention Judaism as a religion, the Peri Pascha asserts"God has been murdered; the king of Israel has been slain by an Israelite hand," and the liturgies cited at Jewish deicide refer to "the swarm of deicides, the lawless people of the Jews", "the gathering of the Jews". None of these sources level a charge against the religion of the Jews.
 * As far as I am aware, foundational texts of Judaism do not endorse Jewish deicide.
 * I hope that's all clearly expressed. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redundancy is no argument at all, especially if the article is to be summary style.
 * This is an interesting point. To exclude Deicide would imply the article is only about Jewish practices, not actions by Jews.  I do not think this is an appropriate action to take on this article, considering the amount of weight this particular criticism has received.  A lot of people still hold this against Jews.  It would be unfair to completely omit it or hide it with a link in the infobox that nobody uses.
 * We don't exclude a controversy because one side doesn't agree that it is a controversy.
 *  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 04:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redundancy is an argument used, for example, in deletion and merge discussions. Regarding the other points, perhaps I am not being clear enough. If the sources show that Jewish Deicide is a criticism leveled at Jewish people, in part or as a whole, rather than against Judaism as a religion, why should it be included here? -- Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a deletion nor merge discussion. What is a religion if no one believes in it?  A criticism of the religion's practitioners is a criticism of the religion.  For example, Criticism_of_Catholicism, Criticism_of_Islam, and Criticism_of_Christianity.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, since we are discussing a proposal to delete, reduce or move content. And other stuff exists, I'm not concerned with the other articles, at least not at the moment. Lastly, I suppose that a religion in which no one believes would be an entry in Wikipedia, assuming reliable and verifiable sources exist. -- Nuujinn (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's recap. You claimed we should delete material from this article because it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia.  I pointed out that this contradicts the format of pretty much every article on Wikipedia (Redundancy is no argument).  You said redundancy is a common argument in deletion and merge discussions [of articles] .  I pointed out that we are no longer discussion deleting this article or merging the article into other articles.  And now you're saying "we are discussing the deletion or merging of content."  Redundancy is not a common argument in discussions about the deletion of merging of content.  If that were the case, we'd have to delete half the encyclopedia.  It is full of topics that link to subtopics.  How about Religion, for example.  Nearly every section and subsection has a "main" or "see also' article.  Should we delete those entire sections because they have their own articles?  Again, redundancy is no argument when discussing content.  We view the article, we view how the sources treat it.  Space and redundancy is the very last of our concerns.  WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia, while there is no policy against redundancy.  Infact, there is a policy for redundancy.  Regarding your last and least sensical point, find me a (real) religion on Wikipedia that no one ever believed in.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should agree to the high-level question (discussed above) of "what is the scope of the article?" before we talk about specific topics like Jewish deicide. Note that when deicide was in the article, it was never a topic on its own, but rather was in the context of "leaders of Judaism persecuted competing faiths, such as Christianity, including support/encouragement of the killing of Christianity's messiah".  --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki already has all the rules it needs for content addition. If editors want to test those rules they can better do so by making their points at the talk pages of the rules that govern content, rather than here. It is not clear how any new approach should differ from the current rules - is the intention to add material that Wiki rules would normally not permit, or to restrict the addition of material that otherwise would be allowed? Either way the rules were arrived at by consensus and should remain until that consensus changes. Weakopedia (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let you know
I just wanted to let you guys know that Gavin is taking any chance he can get to make cheap shots at all of us. Just thought y'all should know. Silver seren C 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good discussion there, with no "cheap shots" at all; and several of "us" agree with Gavin there. Me too. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to accuse others of taking cheap shots. But I'm glad to see the talk here becoming calmer, overall. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with his point about relying on sources, I just disagree with the phrasing of his comments ("laughable discussion", ect). Silver  seren C 20:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is nothing short of Ad hominem attacks. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just the opposite of ad hominem attack; it's attacking the discussion, not the individuals. We do get to attack each others arguments; that's what debate is about. --jpgordon:==( o ) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Final Decisions - Reaching Consensus
These are the points of contention which keep coming up. To finanlly solve the issues after weeks of debate, please add your opinion including a brief explanation. Chesdovi (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Should we include criticism's particular to one stream only?

 * Yes - The fact that a criticism is limited to certain branches can be mentioned in the article, but that is no reason to omit a criticism.
 * Silver seren C 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is how other articles do it. Further, the sources direct the criticisms at Judaism, and it is original research for us to exclude them.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. For several reasons:  (1) Better for readers of the encyclopedia; (2) Consolidate related material in one article;  (3) Many criticisms apply to 2 or 3 branches (e.g. Hassidism & Orthodox & Conservative) and trying to document the criticism outside this article would result in a huge array of repetitive sub-articles;  (4) The downside of documenting "one or two branch" criticisms in this article can be mitigated by including text identifying which branches the criticism pertains to;  (5) there is probably _no_ criticism that applies to only one branch:  Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Hassidism, Karaite Judaism, Orthodox Judaism.  Noleander (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * Yes, if sourced properly, and properly explained. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No - Judaism's streams have widely different views; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Given the lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic.

(2) Does criticism of the Tanakh Bible belong in this article?

 * Yes - Criticism of the Bible, the holy book of Judaism, should be covered here.
 * But the section should be referred to as the Tanakh, not the Bible. Silver  seren C 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Old Testament" as it is called by Christians is NOT the Torah! The Torah is ONLY the first five books credited with being written by Moses (Moshe). The equivalent name of the "old testament" in the Jewish religion is the Tanakh, which is an acronym from the first letters of the three sections that the Jewish "Bible" is broken into, the Torah, the Neviim, the and Ketuvim (Torah, Prophets, and Writings). Please if you are going to call this criticism of Judaism use JEWISH terminology and not Christian terminology! You are playing on OUR ground, use our words out of respect.Camelbinky (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have been saying Tanakh above for quite a while and that it was not me who moved the vote there and reworded it. Silver  seren C 02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Trivially yes, this is not up for dispute. All sources cite the Jewish Bible as being a major part of the Jewish religion.  All other Criticism of articles cover those religons' holy books.  And the "redundancy" argument is completely unprecedented and against community consensus and practice.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Of course criticism of the Tanakh should be included. A religion is defined by its laws, texts, practices.  The Torah (oral and written) are foundational to Judaism, and a criticisms of the Torah such as "Exodus never happened" or "Moses did not talk to God" or "genocide is endorsed by the story of Jericho" (all of which are criticisms documented by secondary sources, whether or not we agree with them) are clearly criticisms both of the Tanakh and of Judaism itself.  Noleander (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * Note - I'm not aware of any editor that has suggested that this article include all criticism of the Tanakh. Instead, the proposals have simply been to include criticisms that are specific to Judaism, such as chosen people, Exodus, Moses, and violence re Jericho/Amalekites/Midianites.  Noleander (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * 4. Yes, if properly sourced, and if rebutting views are also included. It is incorrect to claim that Judaism is separate from its religious foundations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No - Criticising the Bible is not criticising Judaism, that is covered in Biblical criticism.
 * NOTE You're conflating two different uses of "criticism" here. The current article uses criticism in the more popular sense of passing negative judgement.  The Biblical criticism uses criticism in the technical sense which is value neutral until it is applied in practice at which time it could go in either direction.Griswaldo (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Biblical Criticism is not the same as "criticism of the bible". The former is analysis and research about origin & authorship.  The latter is negative criticisms about cruel laws, non-divinity, contradictions, authenticity, etc.  More appropriate articles that include some negative criticisms are The Bible and history or Documentary Hypothesis.    Furthermore, even if there were another article that covered criticism of the Tanakh, there is no WP policy that prohibits a topic being discussed in 2 or more articles.   What is best for readers of the encyclopedia?  Having a small section in _this_ article on the topic, with a "see also" link to the other critical articles. Noleander (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--


 * Note: Please note that I have asked] over at WP:NPOV about the Torah/Tanakh question. Silver  seren C 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: We are more likely to arrive at consensus if we first address issue #3 below ("what is the scope of this article") before moving on to specifics (such as "should kosher slaughter/brit milah/Tanakh" be included?).   The specifics will follow from the scope. Noleander (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--

(3) What is the scope of the article?
I'm adding the most important question here. It has been posed five times above in these talk pages, and I have yet to see Avi, BusStop or Chesdovi provide a sensible proposal. I think we need to agree on a scope before we start talking about specifics (e.g. "Should the bible be included?"). Otherwise, we will never get consensus on those individual topics. In other words, we should proceed top-down, not bottom-up.


 * Proposed Scope A - This article includes negative criticisms of Judaism's laws/precepts/texts/practices that are documented by both primary sources and secondary sources. Criticisms may cover any branch, but if the criticism is limited to a few branches (e.g. Conservative and Orthodox) that fact will be prominently noted.  If another article already exists on the topic being criticized (e.g. Brit Milah) most detail will go into that other, more specific article, and this article will contain a WP:Summary style summary, with a "main" or "see also" link to the more specific article.  All criticisms will be accompanied by balancing/rebuttal information to ensure neutrality. Noleander (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * Support this scope, it follows the form of the other articles and is inline with WP:NPOV.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Scope is too wide and covers criticisms separate and distinct from Judaism, as well as being limited to negative criticisms and not neutral critiques. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is basically what the other criticism of religion articles are like. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This scope is proper for the topic of the article. Silver  seren C 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, if and only if the parts about sourcing and including rebuttal arguments are strictly followed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Proposed Scope B The article discusses critiques of Judaism as a religion, both positive and negative, in summary style linking to other summary-style parent articles where appropriate. This includes the positive and negative effects of Judaism as a religion on the spiritual, moral, and legal evolution of societies for the past 3000 years. This should not include critiques, positive or negative, of Jews; critiques, positive or negative, of texts shared by other religions unless the critique is distinctly related to Judaism (for example, historicity of the Bible or biblical figures is out of scope as that is not specific to Judaism the religion); or critiques, positive or negative, of specific legal practices (a summary section on criticisms of Jewish legal practice as a whole, with links to other pertinent articles may be appropriate). Antisemitic canards are expressly forbidden. Perhaps a summary section for internal criticisms of Traditional Judaism by other branches with links to the main articles for those branches and their reasons for being is also appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Although this is a first-draft and I welcome suggestions for improvement. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is against community consensus in several ways. Firstly, Criticism articles focus on negative criticisms.  These are places to delve into a topic's controversies.  These articles end up seeming negative only if no responses to the criticisms can be found, in which case, they probably should be negative, it's not our job to balance reality with political correctness.  Secondly, community consensus is that criticism of a religion's holy book is criticism of the religion.  This is not up for dispute, as it is also the approach taken by the sources, which we should be following piously.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AzureFury — you seem to consign much to "community consensus," but community consensus is not something that has already been achieved. It is something we are trying to reach now. Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose For several reasons: (1) clearly criticism of Judaism's core texts such as the Tanakh should be included (particularly when the content is directed at texts that are specific to Judaism); (2) It is not clear what "Judaism as a religion" means: too vague and will lead to problems; (3) excluding criticisms of religious laws is absurd; (4) this scope is not consistent with what the broader WP community has agreed to in other "criticism of someReligion" articles; and (5) The proposal to include "positive criticism" of a religion is not consistent with how the sources address religion (there may be some confusion with literary/artistic criticism, which does often include positive and negative criticism). On the other hand:  (a) I do agree that antisemitic canards should be excluded; and (b) I agree that criticisms of Jewish people should be excluded.  --Noleander (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments I agree with some of this, and disagree with some. Broadly, I think it is a mistake to frame inclusion/exclusion on how editors, as opposed to sources, would characterize content. I would, broadly speaking, tend to agree that the page should only deal with criticisms leveled at Judaism, and not at the Jewish people (or, for that matter, at Israel, etc.) for matters separate from the religion itself. I think critiques by one branch of Judaism of another branch are also appropriate. However, it may well be appropriate to also include coverage of certain legal practices, if they arise directly from Judaism, and even of antisemitic canards, so long as they are properly identified as such and not presented as fact. But it is essential that decisions be made on the basis of whether or not the sources say that the criticism is of Judaism as a religion, and not on the basis of whether editors agree or disagree with those sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some suggestions. I took part in the recently-completed AfD and argued for keeping, so I feel that I owe it to the editors who have been worried about the page to come here and try to help with fixing the things that are wrong with it. I have some suggestions, growing mainly out of what Avi wrote just above and what he copied here from what Jayjg wrote. I'm thinking in terms of the lead sentence of WP:V, that we decide on whether to include by verifiability, rather than truth. I would interpret that to mean, for the present issue, that we decide by verifiability, rather than whether the criticism is a valid one. Using that reasoning, I'd like to make the following suggestions, for what they are worth, and I sincerely hope they prove helpful.
 * A lot of what Avi and Jayjg point to are issues of whether or not it is valid to consider the particular topic to be a criticism of Judaism, as opposed to really being a criticism of something else, such as monotheism and so forth. I fear that editors arguing about each of these points based upon what each editor believes may prove unproductive as to reaching a consensus. For example, one can reasonably argue that criticism of monotheism is criticism of much more than Judaism, but one can also reasonably argue that other major monotheistic religions trace back to Judaism, so Judaism was critical to originating the concept. So I would avoid that kind of argument wherever possible, and instead rely on sourcing. If there are verifiable reliable sources (no matter the sources' POVs, and, indeed, no matter whether editors think the sources are correct or incorrect), that say such-and-such is a criticism of Judaism, then it belongs on the page. If the sourcing does not exist, then it does not. Again, the criterion is verifiability, not truth or validity.
 * That, in turn, requires some rigor to avoid violating WP:SYNTH. For example, the page currently includes a section about conflict in the Middle East. One can certainly make a case that this might be criticism of Israel rather than of Judaism. If a source says that something in this particular topic is a criticism of Judaism, then it's appropriate to include, whether right or wrong in the opinions of editors. But if a source says it's a criticism of Israel, then it would be SYNTH for editors to treat it as belonging on this page.
 * A lot of concern during the AfD was about whether this page was a POV attack page. For those topics that get included per what I said above, the way to make them NPOV is not to omit them, but to present both sides. Thus, for every criticism, there must also be a sourced summary of the major arguments rebutting the criticism. It's vital not to leave that out.
 * Another attack-related point occurs to me. I notice that the page does not exactly deal with antisemitism. We may want to consider having a linked summary section, per Avi, to that page. In that section could go some of the criticisms that would fit there.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what would you say about the old version of this article? Silver  seren C 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(Mainly copied from above) As an example, can someone please explain why it is not a WP:SYNTH violation to bring criticism of texts with the justification that "criticizing a book is equivalent to criticizing a religion". It is WP:original research to make that leap. Sources must be used for exactly what they say; a source describing criticism of the bible is just that, nothing more. Unless that very same source, in and of itself, extends the criticism from the text to the religion as a whole, there is no legal wikipedia reason for its being here. It is original research/synthesis to bring textual criticisms here solely because an editor, or set of editors, shares an opinion that there is an equivalence or transitive relation between a text and a religion. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously the scope of this article is being voted on in the poll above, but I would just like to point out that Judaism, according to the article, is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews."It is not constricted just to religion. For that reason, criticism about the circumcision covenant and other things would still fit under this banner. It is for this reason that the Criticism of Christianity page has criticisms about slavery and the Crusades, because it is about the history and actions as well, not just the religion itself. It all has to be taken as a whole, as this is the overarching article for that purpose. It is for that reason that the Tanakh should be included, because it is a part of Judaism and that is reason enough. Silver  seren C 20:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Silver's first question to me, I'm going to try to weasel out of answering "take-sides" questions for a while, while I try to get editors to focus on what the sources say. To Avi's question, I would ask what the source making the criticism says. If the book being criticized is the Bible, it would presumably have to be the Old Testament specifically. If the criticism was of beliefs or practices arising from the Old Testament, then I do not think it would be SYNTH to classify that as criticism of Judaism, although it would depend upon exactly what the source says. What I'm trying to push is that editors should try not to argue about what editors think fits within the subject of the page, and focus instead on what the sources say are criticisms of Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, one has to realize that Christians and Jews (and Muslims for that matter) may interpret the same verses of the Tanakh differently. In order for criticism of the Bible to be specific to Judaism, we would need a source that is discussing Judaism's interpretation of a Biblical verse. Do you disagree? -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why Douglas Rushkoff's book is one of the best sources we could get, because it critiques almost every aspect of Judaism, including the Tanakh, and Rushkoff is himself a Jewish intellectual, so he works perfectly.  Silver  seren C 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rushkoff's being Jewish is completely irrelevant, A notable scholar does not have to be Jewish to be knowledgable about Judaism, and being Jewish does not automatically make someone an expert on Judaism. It looks from here that Douglas Rushkoff is not a scholar of religion, but a media theorist. What makes him an acceptable source? -- Avi (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See below for more issues with Rushkoff as a sole source. -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My head is reeling from the number of edits here since I last looked! Anyway, to Avi's question to me, I need to say first that I am trying to answer in general, not based on Rushkoff or any other specific source. I would say that one has to be careful with using words very precisely. If a source criticizes an interpretation of the Tanakh made by religions other than Judaism, and if the interpretation is one that is generally not accepted within Judaism, then that criticism does not belong on this page. However, if the interpretation grows out of (is an extension of) Jewish thought, the relevance to the page depends upon the extent to which the source claims that it is based in Judaism; commonality to other religious traditions does not automatically negate criticism as criticism of Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues that require address prior to deciding upon scope
If we are going to agree on scope and sources, I think that there are some serious issues that need to be addressed first; the answers to which will go a long way in helping us decide on scope. I will start listing some below. -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms that were influential in causing the formation of branches of Judaism that are no longer subject to said criticisms
The first that comes to my mind is that the formation of the less-traditional movements of Judaism, starting in the late 18th century, were greatly influenced by dissatisfaction with traditionsal Judaism on matters such as its emphasis on legalism, its adherence to what was perceived as archaic traditions, the culture of limited assimilation, etc. On the one hand, one can say these are valid criticisms of the religion as it stood for most of its history and as it stands now among the Orthodox adherents. On the other hand there are now branches of the religion that identifies itself as Judaism that do not suffer from these complaints. How are we going to address these issues in the article. Are they still criticisms of Judaism, that may, in effect, serve to marginalize the branches that are not subject to said criticism, or do we view Judaism as most identified with the traditional Rabbinic branch? I see problems with both ways. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather easy for us to put a sentence or two in the article, even in the lede, that explains that, since Judaism split, the modern criticisms are only for Orthodox Judaism. However, any of the criticisms that are from the past and no longer exist today (if they are before the eighteenth century) would be a criticism of Judaism as a whole at that time. Silver  seren C 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you are saying this article is specifically Criticisms of Orthodox Judaism or are you saying that the other branches do not count? -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant was, if we have any criticisms that are for a specific branch or only apply to a few, then we need to point that out in that section, which is still quite easy to do. That way, all criticisms of religious Judaism can be shown here and not marginalize a specific branch in the process. Silver  seren C 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Point to note- Judaism has never been homogenous since the destruction of the Second Temple and the lack of a high priest. This is not a 19th century phenomenon. Rabbinical Judaism is not the true religious authority on Jewish law and practice, again this would be a cultural issue. Rabbis are not religious authorities, they are teachers and scholars; this is not an episcopal religion like Roman and eastern catholicism (orthodox) or anglicanism. Lots of orthodox temples do have a cohen on the dias that does the priestly prayer though. Judaism is like Wikipedia in that what its policy or practice is is determined by consensus of what the community does.


 * A story from the Talmud summarized and put in my own words simplified for Gentiles- Two rabbis are arguing about a certain point of religious matter. The rabbi of more authority and experience (x) whom most agree with says one thing, the other says the opposite (y). X says if the law is as I say let the tree bend and touch the ground, the tree does; Y says, who are you to say it is as X says, and the tree goes halfway bent out of deference; story continues along these lines with a house falling down, etc till X says "if the law is as I say let the voice of Heaven say so" and X says- Who are YOU to say the law is as X says? You gave us this law to interpret as we wish." and continues to basically say God can have his opinion, but its not binding on us. God's part was to give the law, not interpret it. How I practice Judaism is just as valid as the next Jew, but could be radically different and there'd be different things to criticize about each.Camelbinky (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! neat! Stellarkid (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Camel, what are you suggesting that we do? -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to bring this down to individuals. Keeping it to the main branches is specific enough, regardless if some do it differently. There are always people who do something in a different fashion, but that is not what we're documenting here. Regardless, it doesn't matter anyways, as we should be going off of reliable sources, not our opinions of where it fits. If a reliable source says that it is a criticism for a specific branch, then it is, even if you disagree with it. If you want it to say otherwise, then you would need to find your own reliable source that says differently. As has been stated before, personal opinion or knowledge on the matter doesn't count, only reliable sources matter. "Verifiability, not truth". Silver  seren C 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you "declare" the main branches to be?! There's Hasidim, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstruction, Karaite, and one could even argue that Samaritans are still Jews as well. Jews for Jesus claim they are true Jews religiously and ethnically (I dont doubt they are ethnically). Theres the differences between sephardic, ashkenazi, and ethiopian Jews. Reform Judaism is much more Conservative and religious than when it was founded. A criticism by the founders of Reform Judaism about what was mainstream 200 years ago may again today be common practice in a Reform temple and no longer something reform rabbis criticize.Camelbinky (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet that criticism would still have historical relevance as a criticism. If it is no longer the same, then that should be mentioned, but just because a criticism occurred in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented. The article isn't "Current criticism of Judaism". Silver  seren C 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is criticism of Judaism, but is internal criticism considered criticism is my question. -- Avi (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought is that this has the potential to be very lengthy, sufficiently lengthy that it might properly be forked off to a separate page (if we don't already have it) about these issues, with just a summary here. Perhaps just such a summary would be enough, but I do not see it as entirely outside the subject of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything in this article already has its own page where each section is dealt with in detail in a NEUTRAL manner with positive and negative aspects together. This entire article is nothing more than a summary of the negative aspects already present in perfectly good articles.Camelbinky (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been discussed before on the Talk pages. You'll notice that most of the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles follow WP:Summary style guideline, which means that each section is a summary of a particular criticism, and much of the detail is located in another article devoted to that specific topic.  A Summary Style approach is an excellent choice for this article, and would be very helpful for readers.  Since deleting the article is not an option, WP:Summary style seems like an excellent choice, and would be consistent with the other "criticism of.." articles. Noleander (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--

The vast majority of criticisms proposed for this article apply primarily to various orthodox/traditional branches Judaism. In theory, there could be two articles: "Criticism of Judaism" and "Criticism of Orthodox/traditional Judaism", but there would be so much overlap that it makes sense to just consolidate into one article. The fact that some of the criticisms do not apply to Reform/Reconstructionist Judaism can be stated in the article. Alternatively the article could have top-level subsections, as in:
 * Criticisms
 * Criticisms applicable to all branches
 * Criticisms primarily of orthodox/traditional
 * Criticisms primarily reform/Reconconstructionist
 * Criticisms primarily of Conservative

See Criticism of Conservative Judaism which may provide some insight. Noleander (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--

False criticisms that are outright antisemitism
There were criticisms leveled against Judaism that were out-and-out antisemitic canards, false and baseless accusations made to justify the rape, plunder, and slaughter of Jews, adherents of Judaism or not. These include christ-killing and blood libels. These should not be in the scope of this article, as wikipedia should not be in the business of spreading racism, creedism, and hatred under the guise of "criticism". These are handled adequately in Antisemitic canard, Jewish deicide, Blood libel against Jews, and do not belong here. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they should be included, but it should be clearly pointed out that it isn't true and link to the relevant articles, the ones you have there. Just because they aren't true doesn't meant that they shouldn't be included. It should just be pointed out that they aren't true. Silver  seren C 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

They are not valid criticisms of Judaism; they have been proven false again and again, including a proclamation of the Pope. This article is about valid criticism, not the propagation of antisemitism and hatred, which you are suggesting. -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "valid" or "invalid", it has to do with criticisms, whether true or false. If they are blatantly false criticisms, then that should be very clearly noted in the text of the article, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss it. We shouldn't leave things out just on the basis that they are false, we should find reliable sources that discusses exactly how they are false and discuss that. They should still be included. Silver  seren C 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. This article has to do with criticisms of Judaism not Lies about Judaism; they are two separate things. For example, if there was a 15th century text that said that "All paleontologists were sodomized by Satan nightly" would you say that belonged in an article on the critique of paleontologists? How about if there was an 8th century text that said that "All Texans have necrophiliac carnal relations with sow corpses". I surely hope you would not want that included in a criticism section in Culture of Texas. As simultaneously laughable and insulting as my two examples were, both pale in insult (as well as in the number of murders caused) by the ridiculous, archaic, and false accusations. These accusation ARE discussed in wikipedia, as I mentioned above, but as they are NOT actual crticism, but murderous lies, they do not belong in this article. -- Avi (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very similar issue has been discussed numerous times at RS/N, a source that has a blatant lie is not a RS. Unless, as I always suspected, Texans really do have necrophiliac carnal relations with sow corpses, you can not put that in an article even if it was written by the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. You can not start throwing into this article things like "Jews have been criticized for poisoning wells and drinking the blood of babies during Pesach". That is for the anti-semitism article as the opinion of anti-semites, not here in an article on... well, whatever this article is supposed to be about, I'm still trying to figure that out.Camelbinky (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a criticism that is repeated mutliple times and held in numerous reliable sources, then it should be included, even if it is not true. I agree that if it is a criticism that is stated by one or two people at some point in time, it shouldn't be talked about, because the notability is marginal for that criticism. We should be focusing on main criticisms. If antisemitic criticisms are major criticisms that have been around for a long, long time, then they should be at least mentioned, with the statement that they are untrue, obviously, and then link to the articles that discuss more about them. Silver  seren C 21:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitic canards do not belong in this article but in the article on antisemitism! Stellarkid (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point, Silver. These are not criticisms; These are accusations. A criticism of Judaism is that it is overly legalistic. A lie about Judaism is that its practitioners must sacrifice Christian children. I am appalled that you do not see the difference. -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "Christ-killing" is not a criticism. All i'm saying is that it should be mentioned and linked to the articles you were talking about. I don't see why this is a big deal, when it will be clearly defined that it is untrue. Silver  seren C 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then merge this article with anti-semitism because thats what it becomes then. Christ-killing is not a criticism it is an excuse to kill Jews.Camelbinky (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand you are still a teenager, Silver, and very likely have not studied world history, philosophy of religion, or comparative religions, so I will ascribe your not seeing this as a "big deal" to your youth and lack of experience (no matter how intelligent a person is, the one thing for which intelligence cannot be substituted is life experience). What we have here is a clear violation of scope. "Criticism" does not mean "negative statements;" if that were so, why don't we just start quoting the KKK and Stormfront. "Criticism" means a position or argument (pro- or con-) about a facet of the religion. It is no more a criticism of Judaism to discuss the false and murderous canards as it is a criticism of Judaism to discuss how peanut butter can kill people who are allergic to nuts--since neither is a statement that is true about Judaism. To give any credence to historically proven (and if you are Catholic, disagreeing with the infallible Pope may be putting your eternal soul in jeopardy) murderous lies in an article ostensibly about philosophical discourse on religion is completely unacceptable. We have articles devoted to these lies, and theyu are well-fleshed out. This article must be about criticism, not anything nasty we can find . -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is one thing I am not, it's a teenager. I really do not think that being a lie makes something fail WP:V. Remember, we are talking about what is verifiable, not what is true. We might want to consider that an accurately written short section (summary style, linked to antisemitism), can be useful in showing lies to be the lies that they are. Good scholarly encyclopedic writing can be a powerful rebuttal to bigotry. Would it help to agree temporarily to postpone any additions about antisemitic canards until after the other subject areas are well worked out? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Trypto, firstly, let me preface my remarks by saying I know you are not a teenager, and over time, I have come to respect your opinions and your writing, even when I don't agree with them 8-) . That being said, I have no issue with WP:V here. The fact that these lies were published, used to kill Jews, and repudiated over the past centuries is absolute fact. My point is that they are not criticisms of Judaism, they are false accusations. It is obvious, but the term "blood libel" being used to reflect a false accusation about someone or something comes from the sad historical truth. This article is meant to discuss criticisms of Judaism; I maintain that overt false lies are not, and can not be criticisms, thus the improper scope. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you know I'm not a teenager. I was just saying that in the context of the comments above. :-) I'll answer more substantively below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just put them under a section labeled "Antisemitic criticisms" or something to that effect? It would very clearly explain with the title that the criticisms are not true. Silver  seren C 22:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Land ownership conflicts in Middle East ??!! What has this to do with "criticism of Judaism"? We don't have sufficient articles on the IP conflict already??? Stellarkid (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had the same question, see discussion above, where one user belives that zionism and Judaism are linked by theologic dogma and an argument of including a source supporting this assertion that actually is a crticism a political group of Jews, not Judaism, see Sources for "Land ownership conflicts in Middle East" under disscussion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That criticism is widely made, more or less in the form of "Judaism [and Islam] are responsible for land conflicts in the Mid-East". The religion is _directly_ blamed by many critics.  Specifically, Numbers 33:50-55 is often cited in the criticism.  Noleander (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * That does not make it a criticism of the religion, that makes it a criticism of specific people, or a political group of people (Zionism and Radical Islam) misusing the Qura'an and the Bible. Just because someone says something does not make it a notable criticism, especially when it is not of the religion, but of political movements on both sides of the arena. -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not our role, as editors, to decide what is a criticism or not. If secondary sources describe it as a criticism of the religion, it is a candidate for the article.  We cannot pick-and-choose which criticisms to include.  If the criticism is unfounded, you can find sources to support that contention, and include them to provide balance and neutrality.  Noleander (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * It is our role as editors to define the scope of the article. It is also our role as editors to determine if he criticism being leveled is against the religion or the people. If the source merely says that "XYZ who are of religion PQR are using the Bible to justify ABC", that is not a criticism of either the Bible or religion PQR, that is a criticism of persons XYZ. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not rational. If someone says "Leading Scientologists A,B,C are insane because they believe the Scientology book that says that aliens invaded earth thousands of years ago" ... that is clearly a criticism of Scientology.   Or if someone says "That policy of avoiding birth control that Catholic doctrine teaches is leading to tremendous overpopulation problems" that is a criticism of Catholicism.  Any other conclusion is illogical.   Noleander (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * Regarding your analogy from Catholicism, the statement is directly referring to Catholicism. Secondly, there is no matter of personal interpretation regarding the Catholic prohibition against Birth control. Neither is there one about Scientology. However, there the matter of using Biblical passages to support modern political beliefs in the Israeli-Palestinian debate is one of interpretation as there are large segments of Judaism that disagree with the interpretation of those passages, and there are large groups of non-Jews who interpret those passages to allow various political stratagems. It is clearly not an issue of religion but of politics; unlike the infallible doctrines of the Pope or, for that matter, of L. Ron Hubbard to his followers. -- Avi (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi: we've been over this ground five times already. Yes, many people think of Zionism as a political movement.  Yes, many religious Jews are actually _opposed_ to Zionism.  However, some critics claim that Judaism's laws and doctrines (especially Numbers 33) lead to unfair land issues.  You may not like it, but the critics _do_ blame the religion.  The solution is to include the criticism in the article, and then have all the rebuttal/balancing information immediately following, so readers get the full picture.  Just because some editors of WP believe the criticism is unfounded is no reason to omit the criticism.  Noleander (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us continue this discussion when we discuss section-by-section issues, we can get the actual source quotes and see who is being criticized by whom and how. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of Religious Zionsm, I would point Noleander to Islamism and its criticism page. Chesdovi (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For those Catholics out there, many Popes, including the present and John Paul II, declared "Christ-killing" by the Jewish people to be false; including many popes from the Medieval time period when the play called "The Passion of Christ" was first put on through the Rhine Valley and France as a way to drum up anti-Jewish feelings and start a pogrom (most anti-Jewish riots began with putting on this play). Several popes in that period declared the Passion banned and declared it unsupported by the Bible. Its not modern historical research that says Christ-killing is false, it was contemporary to the very time period when this vicious slander was begun.Camelbinky (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that should be pointed out in the summary. I don't see why this is a problem. Silver  seren C 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a criticism, it is a false allegation usually made by the least educated. Criticism of religion implies a scholarly analysis of religion, its benefits, and its flaws. See below. -- Avi (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking a too-narrow view of the deicide issue. The criticism is not that "Jews killed Jesus" but rather that: "in the early years of Christianity, leaders of Judaism persecuted Christians, which they viewed as a competing faith and followers of a false messiah.  That persecution included:  punishing Christians, playing a key role in the death of Jesus, and written attacks on Christianity".  That is the bigger picture, and perhaps - when we get to that specific section - we can broaden it so the focus is not just on the death of Jesus.  But as you say, let's get consensus on top-level issues first. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The charges of deicide are not a pure canard. See articles Jewish deicide and Deicide.  There is significant scholarly debate over whether Jewish religious leaders played a role in the death.  Although some bigots use "Jews killed Jesus" in a hateful manner, some scholars also claim that "Jewish religious leaders played a key role in the death to extinguish a competitor/messiah/etc ..." and so it is a genuine criticism, as well as a canard.   The Catholic church _did_ issue statements on the matter, but those focused on absolving modern Jews for collective guilt, not addressing the historical accuracy of what happened 2,000 years ago. Noleander (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--
 * I agree, even the article itself points out that it was Jewish authorities that made the decision. A summary style link is in order, I think.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts from me: As far as I can tell, the Jews-killed-Jesus thing is a pure antisemitic canard. As a criticism of Judaism, it is probably nothing more than the criticism shared by both Christianity and Islam that Judaism didn't accept the subsequent religious beliefs. But that's a secondary point, where I'm distancing myself from Noleander on it because I'm going to agree with Noleander on many other points. Somewhere like, oh maybe a gazillion comments above, Avi asked me whether the fact that such canards are false makes them inappropriate for this page, because criticisms have to have some validity. To that, I reply that such validity may all-too-often be in the eye of the beholder. I can imagine an editor who believes strongly in Judaism arguing that all criticisms are incorrect, and therefore, we should delete the page. Hey, wait a minute, I'm not imagining that! We just had that Afd! Thus, for a criticism page, just as validity has little to do with verifiability, it also has little to do with notability. On the other hand, it has a lot to do with due and undue weight. For that reason, I agree with the comments by Silverseren, that we can deal with the criticisms-lies in a summary way that clearly indicates to the reader just how discredited they are. Let me also put it this way: I would absolutely oppose any suggestion to present the canards as though they had substance, as though they could be taken seriously. I'm a big fan of the truth, the whole truth, as an antidote to lies. And, finally, where Avi commented above that maybe we should wait to debate this issue on a point-by-point basis, where we can look at the sources, instead of arguing it in broad brush strokes here, I endorse that strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, because I dont see what the issue is here. Antisemitic canards are well-defined, and there is a comprehensive list at Antisemitic canard.  No one (except one editor) has suggested including them in this article.  The only "borderline" case is Jewish deicide, but we shouldn't let a single example stop us from moving forward.   Pick a random criticism made by Israel Shahak or Douglas Rushkoff, say "Judaism's religious laws discriminate against non-Jews in the areas of interest, sex, and sabbath-violation".  That is readily distinguished from anti-semitic canards in three ways: (1) it is not listed in the Antisemitic canard article;  (2) the critics are not motivated by  bigotry;  and (3) the criticism is not based on falsehoods.   That latter criteria is key:  all antisemitic canards are based on false facts.   The confusion amongst us editors arises, I believe, because many of the laws/practices being criticized are no longer in effect, or at least not in effect in the Reform branch.  But the example criticism was not that "Judaism's practitioners actively practice discrimination" but rather "Judaism's laws - on their face - support discrimination".  The criticism, if addressed in the article, would of course include the following important fact:  leaders of Judaism world-wide have repudiated the discriminatory laws, and they are no longer practiced anywhere.  --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that neither Rushkoff nor Shahak are notable critics of Judaism, or religion for that matter. One is a chemist the other a novelist that happened to write on religion. I do not think that either of them, on their own without more serious and reputable sources, can support a section or statement. -- Avi (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That objection is groundless. There is no requirement that critics be experts in religion or Judaism.  Please use common sense: Can this encyclopedia include criticism of Mormonism's polygamy policy?  of course it can. What if the critics are normal people, not theologians?  The answer is still yes.  Ditto for criticisms of sexism in the Catholic church, or criticism of intolerance in Islam.  There is no requirement that critics be experts in Judaism.  You may be confused by WPs guideline for WP:Reliable sources which suggests (but does not require) that scholarly sources be used to establish the accuracy of scientific and historical facts.  However, in "Criticism of someReligion" articles:  (1) the criticisms are not scientific facts that are right or wrong; and (2) the articles are about the criticism themselves:  whether or not they have merit. --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is mereley an attempt to limit criticisms to those Jews find acceptable.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)