Talk:Judaism/Archive 16

Judaism intro (again); "religion" vs "set of practices and beliefs"
Slrubenstein left this comment on my page:


 * I saw on another user's page you wrote, "I get their argument that Judaism is a religion AND ethnicity." If you genuinely believe this, I just have to say that this was not clear.  But also, I think it is missing the point.  I really hope you know when you read these words that I am taking you at good faith, I do not ant there to be any argument between us and I do not want to frustrate you.  Is it possible for the two of us to communicate without rubbing each other the wrong way?  I hope so!  And I am trying.  If you think I am not trying explain why to me and I promise to try harder.


 * There are two reasons why I did not think you were making the "this AND that" argument, or that you were acknowledging this argument. The first is that the other article is on "Jews."  Jews refer to people, Judaism refers to something abstract.  In other words, I do not see as you seem to, two articles Judaism (religion) and Judaism (ethnicity) - this would be two articles on two aspects of the same thing. I see two articles on two different things - Judaism and Jews.  I think there is sense to this, since there are Jews who disavow Judaism.


 * The second reason is that I think that something very important would be lost if we had two articles (Judaism - religion and Judaism - ethnicity). What we would lose is the various ways in which national and religious aspects of Judaism cannot easily be separated, that they are from the start intertwined.  Somewhere you commented on your desire to call Judaism a religion because Christianity and Islam are called religions.  But Christianity and Islam are not nations.  Christianity in fact claims to be a religion all people can belong to.  Jews on the other hand consider it impossible to practice the Jewish religion unless you are also a member of the Jewish nation (Judaism = both).  In this Judaism is very much unlike Christianity and Islam.  I think calling Judaism a religion minimizes or obscures this crucial difference.


 * Be that as it may, I have added some reliable sources that inform my view. But I wanted to make it clear to you that I see that you made your change in good faith, and that I am disagreeing with you for reasons I have thought over a good deal - they are not capricious or trivial and I did not restore the earlier version because it gave me some pleasure to revert you, it was because I thought the previous version is more consistent with the sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To which I responded with:


 * "I understand what you are saying but you are missing some crucial points. First consensus was ALREADY gained on the Judaism article. You are the only one who keeps changing the article. Everyone else agrees with the edit I made. Second, you keep talking about what YOU believe and your OPINIONS. Here on wikipedia, opinions do not matter. I'm sorry, it's just that simple. It clearly says on the Judaism article, "For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." It doesn't matter if you think the Jew article is about the people and not about the ethnicity or culture. According to wikipedia it is. Which makes your argument completely pointless. Please comply with consensus.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)"

He seems to be the only person arguing for this. Consensus was gained already. I'm not changing the article. The article already says Judaism is a religion numerous times in the article. I'm just making the intro reflect that so that it is in line with some of the other major religion articles. The user, Slrubenstien, continuously is inserting opinion in his argument, which is not what we're here for on wikipedia. I do believe his edits are in good faith, but he should look at the FACTS and consensus. This is just getting ridiculous. It's not a big issue considering the article says Judaism is a religion multiple times in other places and the Jew article already covers the ethnicity and culture of Judaism, even if Slrubenstien believes it doesn't. He keeps saying what he thinks the articles are about, but wikipedia already says what they are about and therefore the argument is moot.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you're asserting that there's a consensus to use the inaccurate and misleading term "religion". I don't see any consensus of the sort.  Do I have to post on the talk page three times a day in order for it to be clear that I disagree?  Is this a "squeaky wheel" kind of thing? - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I retract my statement about everyone agreeing with me. I simply meant that in the talk section "Judaism intro" we discussed this issue and consensus was achieved during that discussion and everyone agreed. I realize now that the issue was brought up again in later talk sections.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed disagree Lisa, but I don't understand how my argument is not understood. It is logical in the extreme. First, a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of the word "religion". Fact. Second, in this article [Judaism] it says that "Judaism is a religion" numerous times in different ways (i.e. "Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still practiced", etc.). Fact. Thirdly, the people who are arguing that it should say "a set of beliefs and practices" want it to say this instead of "religion" because they believe the word "Judaism" also refers to a cultural and ethnic identity and not just a religious one. Fact. However, it clearly says in this same article [Judaism] in the first sentence on the page, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Fact. Even with that last point alone, my argument is clear and infallible. There is no logical argument that can be made against what I just said. I don't mean to sound arrogant. All I care about is that wikipedia is accurate and uniform as any encyclopedia should be. I'm not saying my opinions. Everything I pointed out is FACT.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ec)(out) A "consensus" reached in half an hour (looking at timestamps) is unlikely to reflect many editors at all. In fact, I do not see how one could ever call a half-hour discussion on a talk page much of anything. If you wish to assert "consensus" choose a longer time frame for the input of others. I see no consensus for your position at this time.  Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, but that really doesn't change my argument or that everything about it is true. If you must know Lisa, and other users, I do have an opinion on this subject. But my opinion doesn't matter, and neither does yours Lisa. Or anyone's. All that matter are the facts. You say that the word "religion" is "misleading" and "inaccurate" in regards to Judaism. Where are your sources to back this claim up? Not to mention that what you say doesn't make sense. If the word "religion" is so inaccurate and misleading why does the article clearly say that Judaism is a religion many other times in the article. Including in the first sentence on the page, which I certainly never edited.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the article clearly states: "Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning well over 3000 years. It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[7] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[8][9] Its texts, traditions and values have inspired later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.[9][10] Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law.[11]" That whole paragraph is sourced and has been there for quite a long time. So what's to argue?  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is one of the oldest monotheistic religions in the world, according to this verified and sourced quote right out of the article? Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions. Judaism is. I'm just waiting for the arguments against all this factual evidence I've gathered. This article is about the Jewish religion, period. It states that right at the top of the article. If you want to merge the Judaism and Jew article so that it talks about the religion and ethnicity and culture, then you should argue for that. But as long as the two articles are separate then this one is about religion whether you or I want it to be or not.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blizzard Beast, you're making my point for me. The article says This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew.  As I read it, that means that the religion aspect of Judaism is only one part of it.  Yes, it's the part that's discussed in this article, but that doesn't make it accurate to state that it's a religion.  You could say, fairly, that the parts of Judaism which constitute a religion are a religion, but then all you have is a meaningless tautology. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Lisa, with all due respect, you're making my point for me. You just said it. THIS article. THIS ONE. This specific article...is about the RELIGION. This article, not any other one. Religion may be only one aspect of the word, YES. I agree. There is an ethnic and cultural aspect as well. But this particular article is about the RELIGION aspect. Just that. Not anything else. The other aspects are covered in a different article. Think about it.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about Judaism as a religion, whether we want it to be or not. Religious Judaism. Not cultural or ethnic Judaism. Besides, those cultural and ethnic aspects come from the religion. Even if you still disagree with all I've said, do you have a source? One that makes "set of beliefs and practices" (which is the definition of religion anyways) better than "religion"? Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Judaism, that is the Jewish religion. The other things are part of the Jewish identity, but not of Judaism. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are all making artificial distinctions. Judaism is one of many religions. The main body of this article and the Jew article should feel free to explore the areas you are all so intent upon articulating in the intro. The intro is not for explicating complex or subtle thoughts that are controversial. It is ludicrous that this conversation is talking place. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. An intro should per definition do just that: say in short all the complex things that are explained at length in the article. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. If I might join the party ...Might not the addition that I suggested above this chain of comments address all concerns (at least in part), and be a step forward? It has the benefit, btw, of being (without controversy) in the Jew article. I propose we insert it here, thinking it will add clarity to the first para (on an issue that who are not imbued with this issue are not aware).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The note at the top of the article is also faulty. The blah blah blah about "ethnic, historic, and cultural" should not be there. That should simply read, "Also see article entitled: Jew." Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This blah, blah, blah, as you call it, is a more informative and rather precise version of what you suggest, that has enjoyed consensus for a long time. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not precise. It is plagued by vagueness. Ethnic, historic, and cultural border on being weasel words. In exploring Judaism, the religion, one would inevitably touch upon such dimensions. If adequately sourced, and balanced, that is -- in compliance with neutral point of view -- these dimensions of the Jewish religion can find a place in the article. But extolling them as stepping stones of the religion is to accord them independent existence, when in fact they are almost entirely subservient to the religion, Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to take serious an editor who says that "ethnic, historic, and cultural" is vague or has any connection to weaselwords. You'll excuse me for not continuing this conversation with you. Debresser (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they were weasel words, which is a concept that has a clear definition on Wikipedia. But it might be a good idea to think of them as akin to weasel words. For instance, is Judaism a culture? Well, yes and no. But would the culture exist without the religion? Obviously not. It is not the culture out of which emanates the religion. It is vice versa. I realize that I am misusing the Wikipedia concept of "weasel words," but the first sentence of the page on that subject says, "Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous or misleading." I think the above discussion has a recurrent theme. The theme that I have in mind revolves around finding alternative terms to supplant the most basic and obvious term for the subject of this article which is plainly "religion." It is not that the terms and phrases that have been suggested are utterly inapplicable. But aren't they "misleading?" Judaism has a culture. But the preeminent entity is the religion. The culture is merely associative with the religion. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Judaism is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews." I would weigh that fact more heavily than most "facts" found on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that description completely, and do not think it is at odds with the present text of the hatnote. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Debresser, I don't know if you noticed, but the definition from the Encyclopaedia Judaica provided above by Malik Shabazz is for the word "Judaism," while the "hatnote" that you refer to is a link to the article entitled Jew. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would also help that during this discussion if users would state which intro they think should be the one used. Because, I could be mistaken, but most people seem to be saying "religion" is better but are arguing about other issues. Like Bus Stop and Debressor, who both make good arguments, seem to think the word "religion" in the intro sentence are satisfactory, but are arguing about some other intricacies on what should be incl. in the article, etc. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Debresser made a good point, too, when he said that this article is not about the Jewish identity but about the religion. I don't mean to sound like a prick or come off as insulting or something, but I really do not get why this is such a big deal. It's a really simple change, and yes, semantics is important and words mean a lot, even simple ones, but a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of "religion" and doesn't change the meaning. We all agree that Judaism covers a lot, like the religion itself and a certain identity that incl. an ethnicity and culture (Though doesn't Islam and Christianity cover that, too? Although some might argue to a lesser degree). We just can't seem to agree on what this article is specifically covering. Which I really don't see why there is any argument about that at all. This article doesn't cover the cultural or ethnic aspects of Judaism. The Jew article does. However, this article does mention Judaism as a religion about just 100 times over. One of the sections even says:("8 Judaism and other religions").  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Compromise (sorta): Could we say something in the intro like "Judaism refers to both the Jewish religion and the Jewish cultural and ethnic identity" (Even though this article doesn't cover the cultural/ethnic aspects at all and the Jew article does)?. This might be more fair, though I think it's redundant as the article already talks about that issue in the first sentence (where the Jew redirect is).  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As more evidence in support of "religion" look at the sentence right after the intro: "Jews consider Judaism to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel—originally a group of around a dozen tribes claiming descent from the Biblical patriarch Jacob and later the Jewish people.[3]" Doesn't the reference to God constitute "religion"?  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, is it just me or do the people who keep arguing against the "religion" side keep not even bothering to answer all my points? I made all these blow-by-blow points and no one has even bother to try to answer them and tell my why I'm wrong blow-by-blow on each point. It seems like everyone who has argued against me just completely ignores all my points and then just says I'm wrong and spouts a bunch of opinion that is not supported by wikipedia guidelines. Not to sound mean. I'm sure those people mean well enough. It's just that no one is making any good arguements or telling me why each of my arguments is wrong. Pretty frustrating.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Navnløs makes a number of claims: (1) that consensus was reached for his change; this is false, this discussion to which he refers took place after two people reverted his non-consensus edit. His original non-consensus edit was unilateral. If there was any discussion leading to a consensus prior to his edit would he please provide an edit diff? (2) That there is a consensus for his edit. False. There is at best some uncertainty about how the introduction reads, but several editors support it. That simply canot be discribed as a consensus for change. (3) that his edit is based on sources, not on his personal POV; this too is false, he has never provided any sources to support his edit. he has refered to inconsistencies in the article and between the article and disambiguation note. Knock-knock! Inconsistencies on the page are not what we mean by "sources" (please read WP:RS); they are inconsistancies and we certainly can discuss how to improve them. But Navnløs seems simply to be a POV-warrior. I do not know what deep insight into Judaism, or what kind of research, leads him to be so dedicated to his crusade to change the introduction, he has given no indication of any research at all, or any knowledge of Judaism beyond what he has read of an incomplete (I mean, unfinished) Wikipedia article. (4) that people who disagree with him are POV-pushers. I do not know if that is mere parroting, a knee-jerk and childish form of defense, or projection, but it is again simply false. He opens this section by posting a personal comment I made on his talk page, in which I informed him that i had posted reliable sources on this page! I provided a number of sources, and Malik Shabbazz just provided another, which once again makes the simple point that Judaism is a religion, and it is other things, i.e. it is more than a religion, which means that we need language that is inclusive of religion plus other things (like, philosophy and way of life, following EJ, or civilization or legal system, following others). But Navnløs has never responded to any discussion of sources. Apparently his ideal is to write an encyclopedia that is based not on knoweldge but ignorance. I really would much rather he read a few books.

Navnløs, everyone has responded to all of your points. You just are not listening. As Lisa says, do you just want us to post three times a day? Lisa says "squeaky wheel; I say a classic case of WP:DE; at least on her user page Navnløs identifies herself as a pirate who says "F you" to other users (yes, a joke very funny ha-ha).

This is a serious issue: I and others have suggested serious ways that this article can be improved. Navnløs, if you really wish to improve the article, you could really earn all of our thanks if you disd some research and added meaningful content to the body of the article. Here are specific areas where the article needs work: and. Why not do that?

So the "pirate" wants a compromise. But as many people have pointed out, the introduction to this article makes it very clear that Judaism is among other things a religion. The article identifies Judaism as a religion, it never says it is not a religion. All we have is one sentence that suggests that it is something bigger. How about this as a compromose: Navnløs, edit articles on topics you know about. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to go as far as invoke WP:DE, but he and Bus stop do seem to have a hard time getting things inside their skulls. I already advised Bus stop to do something else with his free time, but that didn't help. I'm afraid your advise to Navnløs will go the same way. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, DE is at least premature. But he seems obsessed with this one issue and I do not unerstand why. If I had time now I would be working on the very improvements I suggest, but I really have RL to attend to. If there are editors with more time on their hands, I really wish they would focus on content. There really is so much more to Judaism and I wish this article did justice to it. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor, I guess. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a new quote for me -- I woulda used "Sufficient unto the day" which does seem to be similar. Collect (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Debvresser but how do I have a hard time getting things through my skull? Still at this point in time no one has addressed all the points/arguments I made earlier except for Slrubenstein's begrudging admission that there are "inconsistencies" in the article, but he refuses to address them. I will respond to you point by point Slrubenstein, as I wish someone would respond to my points. For points (1) and (2) that you made: I guess you missed it but I already apologized above for saying there was consensus and pointed out that I thought consensus had come about but that the conversation and issue had been brought up again later by yourself and some other users. So those are dead nonpoints. (3) I never said I had sources, I was only pointing to logic. This article states what it is about numerous times, but you wish the intro sentence to not reflect that. I actually did point out one source that you can find in any dictionary. The meaning of the word religion (a set of practices and beliefs). Also, you are making blatantly false claims. Perhaps you disagree with my evidence and the such, but you say I am instituting POV, which is a lie. I haven't even stated what my opinion on the matter is at all, unlike you. My opinion doesn't matter only that wikipedia, like any encyclopedia is accurate and uniform. You on the other hand (and some other users) keep saying what you think/feel Judaism is, which is blatant POV. So, on that count, you are either mistaken or just a complete liar. Also, you keep attacking my knowledge of Judaism. Must I be a master scholar to note errors in an encyclopedia? As a matter of fact I do know quite a bit about Judaism. I don't point it out because it doesn't matter. Only sources and logic matter here. I can't exactly cite myself. Besides, as I said, my opinion on this subject doesn't matter as opinion doesn't matter on wikipedia. You also keep questioning why I am going over this issue in the first place, when I have stated that before. Encyclopedias strive for accuracy and uniformity and I wanted to make this article more uniform with other major religion articles which all state that they are religions in the intro sentence. (4) I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with me is a POV-pusher. Once again, you are mistaken or lying. There are, however a few users, incl. yourself who have made claims about Judaism without proof. If you have posted some sources earlier on this page, I would definitely like to see them and I apologize for missing them before. As for Malik's source, it does indeed say that Judaism is more than one thing, but it also does say it is a religion. But that's not what's at debate. We all agree that Judaism covers the religion and cultural/ethnic identity. We just don't agree what this article is about (and the Jew article to some extent) to which I have made many valid points that people who don't like the word "religion" are just intent on not responding to. You keep saying people have responded to all my points, but they have not. Only some users have even attempted to and their attempts involve saying "you're wrong" and then saying what they think Judaism is. In your next sentence you then talk about my user page (I'm a he btw, not a she). You seem intent on insulting me and it's bordering on personal attacks. What does my user page matter? Have I ever said anything against you whatsoever? And, yes, my user page is meant to be humorous. What's your problem with that? Next, you say that there are other areas of the article that can be improved (which I won't disagree with) and then you ask why I don't work on those areas. Uh, because last time I checked users were free to work on what issues they wish. Are you seriously trying to boss me around? Oh, here's a good point, why don't you work on those areas? I work on what I please. I'd love to work on every article and a lot more. But I do have a life that involves work and schooling. I just happened to notice the intro sentence (which is a big deal) on this article was not uniform with others. Oops, my bad? At the end of your argument there you further insult me and tell me to edit issues I know about. First of all, as I said before, a user on wikipedia doesn't have to know anything about an issue as long as they notice something wrong, even if it's just with the formatting of the article. Secondly, I do know plenty about Judaism as it was an integral part of my life, which I do not wish to discuss, and I also have plenty of opinions on Judaism and this issue. But my opinions don't matter (for the millionth time) and neither does anyone else's. Wikipedia is about facts not opinions. Lastly, I want to point something out. You keep making me out to be a "bad" guy or something (instead of purely arguing the issues) but how come I am the one who is suggesting compromises. All you have been saying is that the way you like is the only correct way. We all agree that Judaism is numerous things. We even agree on what those things are. So why can't we come to a compromise? I suggested a few, to which you didn't even respond. You do, however, talk about me personally and belittle me. Have I even once said anything about you whatsoever? No. Why? Because I don't care about anything to do with you personally. All I care about is your ability to bring something to the table in regards to wikipedia intelligently. As long as you can do that, even if we disagree on an issue (or even many issues), I will still respect you. I humbly ask you to do the same. So if we really can't agree, could you look over my compromises or maybe even suggest one of your own? Heck, go crazy. Suggest a few.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 12:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I provide sources to support the consensus, and you accuse me of imposing my personal point of view (which I have never expressed). You do not provide any sources, and yet somehow this is not your own point of view? I just do not get that.

You say you do not make this personal, but you consider my supporting a longstanding consensus "ridiculous." And you say that my point about inconsistencies in the article is made "begrudgingly." How do you know my mental state? In fact, don't all Wikipedia articles, or virtually all, have inconsistencies? isn't this the inevitable consequence of articles being edited by thousands of people? I am not "admitting" anything, I am pointing out that your claim to be making a logical argument has no logic at all behind it.

When there is an inconsistency between two descriptions of an object, there is no "logical" solution to the problem. One has to ask which description is more accurate or in the case of Wikipedia more compliant with our policies, such as NPOV and RS. I and several others have argued that the language in the first paragraph is both more accurate and more inclusive of diverse views from reliable sources and thus in compliance with policy, moreso than the disambiguation tag. This is understandable as many people discussed and worked on the first paragraph of articles; disambiguation lines are written much more casually. In this case, if there is an inconsistency I'd say it is the disambiguation tag that needs to be revised. Am I admitting this "begrudgingly?" Hardly. It was my position from the very start.

I do not know what you mean by "compromise." Compromises are between two opposing views. I have no views, and do not see any opposing views. I see problems, and solutions. One problem is how to describe Judaism in a way that is inclusive of the views found in reliable sources. I think the first paragraph does that just fine. I see attempts to change it in ways that ignore the sources to be creating problems, and I have no interest in "compromosing" with that.

If we look at the contents of this article, including various suggestions concerning contents that should be added to it, and the contents of the Jew article, it seems to me that we really have three different articles: one on Judaism, one on Jews, and one on Jewish history. Currently the latter two are merged in one article. That was done a while ago, when both articles were short. But the Jews article is now 123 kb long, and it is suggested tha it be split. I would propose splitting it into two articles, Jews and Jewish history. The article on Jews is an article on people; it emphasizes demographics with a section on population genetics. Social scientists distinguish between ethnic identities and cultures on the one hand, and social groups and populations on the other hand. The article on Jews seems pretty clearly to me to be about groups and populations. It doesn't say much at all about Jewish culture or Jewish customs. Anthropologists most generally understand culture to encompass those things that are learned and which give life meaning to people. This seems to apply uite nicely to this article. I think whoever wrote the disambiguation tag was acting in good faith but really hadn't thought it through. This does not surprise me because disambiguation tags are usually not based on much discussion or thought (if anyone can point me to any archived discussion concerning the precise phrasing of the disambigution tag I would love to read it but I do not recall any discussion at all). So this may be the first time we are actually discussing the disambiguation tag. If "inconsistency" is a problem, I suggest we change the disambiguation tag to say "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws. For information on Jewish populations and groups, see Jews; for the history of the Jewish people see Jewish history" or something like that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, Jews, has a section called "Jewish culture." Guess what the main article it linked to was? This one - "Judaism." So according to the Jews article, this article is on Jewish culture. I am not going by the diambiguation tags which as I said are typically written by one person without any discussion, I am going by the contents of the actual article. If there are inconsistencies, I think it is obvious that disambiguation pages and tags need to describe the actual article. I just changed the title of the section on Jewish culture to "Judaism" since the contents of that short section was on "Judaism", but to return to this page, this is what the article Jews has to say about Judaism: "Judaism guides its adherents in both practice and belief, and has been called not only a religion, but also a 'way of life' ..." I think if someone is worried about inconsistencies, it is perfectly reasonable to change the disambiguation description to, "Judaism refers to the jewish way of life" or as I suggested above, "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the source thing goes, I already pointed to places in the article, where it says that Judaism is a religion and then has a source. But that's not the issue. Judaism is a religion among other things and we both know it. What's being argued is about what this article is really about.


 * Once again you completely didn't address some of the things I talked about. But I'm not even going to go there. There's no point in me pointing out everything you have said and responding to it all when you are intent on just saying what you think and not really responding to me. So I'll just use a different tactic. I agree with some of what you said. I also disagree with other things you have said.


 * Compromising is not just between two opposing opinions as you suggest. Compromising and working towards a middle ground to satisfy everyone, incl. the users and people who view this article and others, is the wikipedia way. I found this out the hard way a long time ago.


 * Now, although I don't see too many problems with the massive changes you have suggested, I will say that they seem a bit overly optimistic. Will you actually see to it that they get done? Or will it be one of those millions of times on wikipedia where something is suggested and then no one does anything?


 * One thing that some users keep pointing to, incl. yourself, is that Judaism doesn't just refer to a religion but a "way of life" and the "philosophy and laws" of the Jewish people. But how is that any different than any other major religion (or possibly any religion)? Isn't Islam and Christianity a "way of life" for its followers? There's certainly plenty of philosophies and laws associated with those two religions as well, just like Judaism.


 * Next, though, I want to point out one thing you didn't respond to (though there were many, I'm not going to mention them all as it would be time consuming and fruitless as you consistently ignore some of my points). The second sentence, right after the intro sentence that we are discussing, says that, "Jews consider Judaism to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel...claiming descent...from the Jewish people." That sentence has a source and is RIGHT AFTER the intro sentence. It says "God". That means religion. It's certainly not secular in any way (as the Jewish cultural/ethnic identity could be, which is why you're arguing against the word "religion" in the first place, because the two can be separate).


 * I could suggest some additional reasonable compromises (and, yes, I will admit you suggested some okay ones) but this is maddening. The average person is going to read that first paragraph and infer religion anyways. Not to mention all the places in the article where it says Judaism is a religion (with sources). The disambiguation says this article is about the Jewish religion as well. So what do I care? I'm tired. I don't need this stress or this argument. Leave it the way it is and screw uniformity. Who cares if it's uniform anyways? Only encyclopedias care about uniformity and Wikipedia is hardly that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't even be used as a source, and for good reason. My optimism is shot. Why should I care about this one article? Or any article? Or Wikipedia? There's plenty of simple compromises and places where we can slip in a few words about Jewish religion, philosophy, people, identity, etc. and make it more uniform and informative than "sets of practices and beliefs" (what exactly is not a set of practices and beliefs, nowadays, anyways? Materialism is a set of practices and beliefs. A teenage girl's makeup is a set of practices and beliefs. The media is. Sports are. Just about everything is a set of practices and beliefs.) in that first intro sentence.


 * I used to think wikipedia aimed to be descriptive. I'll let other people decide on these issues. Any average person who reads this article probably won't even notice the difference between "religion" and "sets of practices and beliefs". Nor will anyone care about or appreciate all the effort we've put in to this debate over a few measly words. It's all just depressing. Not to mention no one else is even debating this anymore except you and me Slrubenstein. Even the other users who argued before don't care anymore. So you've tired me out. Read what I've wrote and decide what you will. Though I already know what your decision will be from what you've said.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 13:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected this article to stop edit warring. Please try to resolve your differences on the talk page. If that fails, try dispute resolution. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Elements, Part deux
Rather than saying what Judaism IS, perhaps we should say what Judaism concerns. Is Judaism a nation? Well, apparently people want to argue about that. But surely no one needs argue whether Judaism contains national interests. Does Judaism have one God? Well, that depends on if God exists. But Judaism believes there is one God. The first is an absolute statement and the second is not.

Judaism is a religion that contains national, practical, legal, and linguistic elements. Most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew, while facing the temple mount in Jerusalem. The prayers are not only focused to God about moral concerns, but also about legal and practical ones: what is commanded. And, finally, Judaism contains specific limits to belief: only one God, an eternal Torah, etc. None of these elements is a single defining character of Judaism, however. It is not JUST a nation, or JUST a culture, or JUST an ethnic group, or JUST a religion (and of course no religion is "just" a religion, or else we editors would have nothing more to write about them, would we?).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(dab) I thought that part of the problem was with people not knowing what a religion is, so I added an etymology section to that article (it was promptly removed!). However, it seems to me there is another problem.

Strictly speaking Judaism is an early 17th century Christian label for what Jews have instead of Christianity.

For Jews, the whole body of text that serves them in defining who they are was given for that purpose, as a source of differentiating between those that had many gods, and those that had one God. Besides that, it also serves as a code of conduct, spiritual, moral, environmental, social, economic/financial and security/military for an individual, a family, its community and a nation as a whole. There was no comparable code, and neither Christianity nor Islam produced one that sufficed to the same degree.

From this perspective, calling Judaism a monotheistic or Abrahamic religion just like Christianity or Islam is unwarranted because it only equates them based on a single aspect of enumerating deity. I think this is done because if greater degree of comparative analysis is attempted, similarity between the three disintegrates rather swiftly.

More importantly, Jews await the recreation of the united Kingdom of Israel as a culminating in a series of events which would herald a new age for the (reconstituted) Israelite tribes. This is a vastly more complex concept to describe in an encyclopaedic article than a 'religion' and would probably make for some eye-opening reading for many non-Jewish, and perhaps even Jewish readers of Wikipedia. I would also predict that it would raise substantial opposition from other editors because quite a few articles that include sections on Judaism will require substantial editing.

Currently the article only deals with:
 * 1) 1 Religious doctrine and principles of faith
 * 2) 2 Jewish religious texts
 * 3) 3 Jewish identity
 * 4) 4 Jewish denominations
 * 5) 5 Jewish observances
 * 6) 6 Community leadership
 * 7) 7 History
 * 8) 8 Judaism and other religions

The article is vastly deficient.
 * While there is no doctrine in Judaism that I know of, and there is no mention of it in the section ostensibly intended for it, the only affirmation of faith that every Jew is supposed to say twice daily, and the only part of the Torah he/she is supposed to know by heart and in Hebrew, the Shema, is not mentioned at all! And mind you, as I understand it the men used to wear teffilin with the parchments of Shema all day long in Mishnaic times, and the Shema in the mezuzot is found on the door posts of even Jewish atheist, albeit as a cultural/artistic expression.
 * What came first, Jewish texts, or Jewish identity? It seems to me that identity came first with Abraham the Hebrew, so why is it presented in the article after the texts? Instead the only mention of Abraham is in relation to the conversion!
 * One would think that something more than a bare list of Jewish texts could have been presented to the reader to in some way elucidate the scale of importance between the Torah and "Jewish philosophy". Then there are 'gems' like this in the 'legal literature' section "While there have been Jewish groups whose beliefs were claimed to be based on the written text of the Torah alone (e.g., the Sadducees, and the Karaites), most Jews believed in what they call the oral law. These oral traditions were transmitted by the Pharisee sect of ancient Judaism, and were later recorded in written form and expanded upon by the rabbis." In fact the Sedducees denied the oral transmission of the Torah from Moses rather than by the Pharasees (who were not a sect). Not surprisingly the entire Jewish legal literature section lacks even a single reference!
 * What came first, Jewish denominations, Jewish observances, Community leadership, History or Judaism and other religions? It seems to me that chronological approach in lacking any other system would seem to be a good one.
 * Given that circumcision was an observance given in Genesis, I would have thought observance section would come first since it preceded any schisms in the observance, emergence of leadership on a lager scale, lack of any real history beyond Abraham's lifetime, and encounter with other religions (outside of Abraham's birthplace).
 * IMHO it would then be followed by history that included the pre-Sinai tribal and Egyptian slavery histories which shaped not only the pre and post exile histories, but necessarily the diaspora history.
 * Then would come leadership and the model of Moses that was to be emulated by all leaders that followed to some degree, even in the modern era.
 * From this we get to denominations, from the first challenge to the sought norms by Korach and his followers, to the sectarian chanllenge of the Pharasees, the development of Christianity, schism of the Karaites (as an aside, we might consider the argument that Saadiah Gaon was the real schismatic when it came to the Karaites, and I'm sure there are other POVs to uncover in the many complicated POV issues throughout Jewish history --AFriedman (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)), and the modern interpretations.
 * But, so much is left out of this article considering 'Judaism' also serves as a code of conduct, spiritual, moral, environmental, social, economic/financial and security/military for an individual, a family, its community and a nation as a whole.--Meieimatai?  06:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meieimatai, great comments. Slrubenstein, yours too re: how to improve the article. I am not that familiar with the fundamental principles of Jewish philosophy and Jewish textual analysis, and it's a fascinating aspect of Judaism that would lend depth to the main article. I'd been planning to move to the "Jewish denominations" section next or continue to flesh out the one about family purity (missing from family purity are a few examples of the special things Haredim do, as well as Conservative/Masorti responsa). However, if you're rewriting the sections about Jewish texts and philosophy, I'll work with you.

In terms of related articles on the subject, WP does not yet have an adequate explanation of what the 4 levels of Pardes are, which IMO is a major omission. --AFriedman (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose that the following sentence be added to the article ... apparently I chose an awkward moment to seek to add it ... . I also propose that someone roll up most of this page, or archive it, and put a break or two in this longish conversation.  Or not.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We currently have one FA dealing with a religion, Islam. Maybe we could use the structure of that article as a rough guideline as to how to structure this article? John Carter (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism as the traditional faith
Note: this discussion concerns this addition:
 * The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

by user:Epeefleche. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I think the sentence you just removed was pretty neutral and relevant. What is the problem Lisa and AFreidman have with it, according to you? Debresser (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have said "per Malik." I am a little uneasy about introducing the word "faith" in the first paragraph.  It is a word I think many Jews are comfortable with since Rambam's principles became widely accepted, but it is a word that has specific meanings in Christianity and some have argued that Judaism is not principally about faith.  Given the meaning of "halachah," why not describe the Jewish religion as a way (path) of life, or set of laws and legal principles?  All this may require more discussion and may be too much for an introduction, and I just think it is better left for the body.  Otherwise, I do not have any strong problem with the sentence although Einstein and Brandies are not real scholars of Judaism as such, and surely we can find real historians of Judaism/Jews to support the quote ... If others think I am quibbling and ish to put the line back in, I will not object.  But when this page was unprotected, the unprotector suggested that no one make any substantive changes without discussion. Navnløs made a change without discussion, and Malik Shabbazz reverted it, and instead of taking it here for discussion, as we all agreed when the page was unprotected, Navnløs nust put it back in.  I don't like claims of a phony consensus for anything.  I felt that given that even one person reverted the edit, Navnløs should have taken it here for discussion before putting it in.  Given the above lengthy statement, I did not think there was any point to my saying anything more in response or justification but i am glad to respond to you, Debresser.  So, the above are my two substantive qualms with the line, but my main one is procedural, that given the doubts of others it should not be put in without some discussion.  Perhaps we can give Malik Shabbazz a day to register any comments, if he wishes; Lisa and AF too are free to comment.  If no one else has a real objection, or if another editor or two agree it is an improvement, I will not object.  But I would like some discussion of this "Judaism as the traditional faith of the Jewish people" - even if we are looking for a way to describe the Jewish religion, I would definitely not use "faith" as interchangable with "religion" in the case of Judaism.  Some modern Jewish theologians have written thoughtfully about "faith," especially (but not exclusively) Conservative Theologians like AJ Heschel and Will Herberg.  Like Rambam's Guide to the Perpelexed, they seem to have been writing more for assimilated Jews of their time than for religious Jews.  I do not knock this!  But I think (for Navnløs' sake, I guss I must put "based on the sources I have read") that as religion Judaism is nevertheless best understood in terms of other things than "faith."  Discussion? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More and more I like "Social, ethical and religious traditions and practices" ("social" would clearly include national traditions). Collect (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again Slrubenstein states a lot of things, without any sources whatsoever except his own personal knowledge. Plus, what gives him the right to remove that sentence? It has sources and is valid. 71.193.10.156 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's this edit we're talking about, on the one hand, it's probably reasonably accurate. On the other hand, it wasn't properly sourced at all; 1915 speeches by Supreme Court Justices, 1921 statements by theoretical physicists, or books published in 1875, aren't really reliable sources for this. The subject here is religion, not law or physics. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

defining terms; removing ambiguity from terminology
Are we going to define "ethnic Jews," or are we going to leave that open to interpretation? I think we should say what we mean, whatever that may be. We should endeavor to eliminate ambiguity. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we already do that, here? Or do you mean something else? Your edit suggests that one belongs to an ethnic group only by virtue of birth.  Is that what Judaism says?  I ask because it is not an essential part of the definition of "ethnic group" (people related through a common ancestor) and there are ethnic groups where one can become a member through other means.  During Roman times, Jews were identified as a "race" (I do NOT know what Latin word was used) but the word was applied to converts as well as to people born Jewish. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are referring to a point later in the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that "…one belongs to an ethnic group only by virtue of birth." From where are you deriving that? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the total sentence, including my edit:


 * "This figure includes both ethnic Jews, by which we are referring to those who are Jewish by birth, and converts to Judaism."


 * It mentions those "…who are Jewish by birth…" and those who are Jewish by conversion.


 * The word "ethnic" was there before my edit. I merely defined the word ethnic in the context that it is being used in this particular sentence.


 * The word (ethnic) is used; the word should be defined. That is what my edit is intended to accomplish. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure what you meant, I am sorry, I misread the edit history. I admit I was confused at first by the edit.  Personally, I like your edit.  Still, to be safe, it would be good to know hetehr there are any authoritative writings within Judaism on whether converts are part of Am Yisroal, that would be a good citation to add. To define what "ethnicity means in general, just link it to Ethnic group.  But to explain the definition of "ethnic Jew" within Judaism, one would need a Jewish source, right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, one would not necessarily need a "Jewish" source. What we have to do is be frank with the reader. Which simply means explaining what we mean. There are many uses, or at least more than one use, for the pairing of terms based on "ethnic" with terms based on "Jew." What is called for, if some editors at this article wish to use such pairings of two such related terms, is to expand upon what is meant in the usage presently at hand. Please feel free to do "Google News" searches for such terms as "ethnic Jew" and "ethnically Jewish."


 * Here is just one article which caught my attention recently. Notice the sentence, "That does appear to me to put persons who are not ethnically Jewish at a disadvantage as compared with those who are." Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On this matter I think we do need a Jewish source, because this is an article on judaism. And we are not allowed to put our own views in an article.  If it is just a matter of using the English language clearly, that is up to us.  But different ethnic groups have different criteria for membership in the ethnic group so it cannot be what you or I think, it has to be what jews think, that is, Jewish authorities (or historians or sociologists studying Jewish ethnicity). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever you do, please be clear that the reader understands what you are saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone understands what Jewish ethnicity means. Please desist from this crusade against the term, it's what got you blocked for many months in the past. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the promotion of your pet term. Its use is gratuitous. Its use requires the parenthetical clarification, "(i.e. Jews by birth)."


 * Here are the two sentences:


 * 1.) "This figure includes both Jews by birth as well as converts to Judaism."


 * and this:


 * 2.) "This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism."

''
 * The difference is the second sentence is longer, more complex, and includes the term "ethnic Jews." I aim for simplicity and clarity. And I do not have any pet terms that I am trying to promote. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no "pet term"; rather, I've restored the common and well-understood terminology which for some strange reason you are on a crusade to remove from Wikipedia. The phrase "ethnic Jew" was already in the lede; I merely streamlined some non-encyclopedic language. Wikipedia articles aren't self-referential, and Wikipedia doesn't define the term "ethnic Jew" in a way that is different from the standard definition. We've been through this before, when you brought long lists of irrelevant dictionary definitions in a desperate attempt to insist the term and concept didn't exist. As Malik Shabazz put it so well over a month ago, "Your obsession with the subject of Jewish ethnicity across many Talk pages is becoming disruptive." Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayjg -- your concern should not be my "…dictionary definitions…" of a month ago, and in a different article. That has nothing to do with this incident. You are creating a smoke screen. That is a diversionary tactic. All that I attempted to do today was clarify one sentence, here in this article. You apparently are averse to discussion. And then the article gets protected. And then you blame me. Yet you cannot, apparently, so much as articulate the reason why the sentence that you insisted upon is in your opinion a preferable sentence to the one that I argued for. Slrubenstein and I were discussing this here for a couple of hours before you decided to unilaterally impose your will on that sentence, with no prior discussion. And the issue up until that point was NOT one of whether "ethnic Jew" should be in that sentence. I never tried to remove it. You are trying to implicate me in a wider issue that doesn't quite exist. I only made an edit which removed the term "ethnic Jew" after you began imposing your will. And I will still stand behind my edit. But you have apparently chosen to not even defend the edit over which you and I disagreed. That is hardly the way to collaborate on a project. You obviously want me out of your way so you can impose your will unimpeded. That is sad and bad for Wikipedia. The Talk page exists for a purpose. If you can't engage in dialogue with me on a Talk page then what possibility remains for cooperative, collaborative editing? Bus stop (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to the consensus version (the version from before this conflict). Both editors should refrain from editing this sentence until a clear consensus has been established. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are at least three editors of this sentence, Debresser, you no less than anyone else. You should also refrain from editing this sentence until a clear consensus has been established. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am completely uninvolved in this specific case, and your aggressive stance is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been edit-warring on this article for weeks; I haven't been involved in this article at all. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But Jayjg is still correct. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A Sniper, why is Jayjg "…still correct?" Is this just a matter of vote-taking? Don't you think reasoned dialogue has a place in the construction of Wikipedia? Additionally, why have you removed this from your User Talk page? Certainly it is your prerogative to do so. But once again -- do you believe in interacting with others, even those you may not agree with? I posted a critical comment on your Talk page. But it was not uncivil. Perhaps I should apologize for even posting on your Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not enforce your opinions with editing at this moment, or we shall protect the article again. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "We shall protect the article again"? It was your aggressive edit-warring that led to the article being protected in the first place: Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything else to say usefull? If not, then please refrain from waking sleeping dogs. This is not called "being constructive". Debresser (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been edit-warring on this article for weeks. You're edit-warring again today. Please stop doing so. That would be constructive and useful. Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I refuse to be draged into conflict with you. I am no party to this specific discussion. Please continue to consensus forming and then edit. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! You "refuse to be draged into conflict" with me? Then why are you reverting my edits, and reverting any others who restore them? Please stop edit-warring, and please stop pretending that you're doing anything else but edit-warring, as you have been doing here for weeks. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Faced with two editors who do not relent from edit-warring, I have asked for protection of this article. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Jayjg, Yes, you "streamlined" that sentence. And I streamlined it further. Can you please tell me why your version of that sentence is preferable to my version of that sentence? Let us discuss the edit. You seem intent on widening the issue. You seem intent on putting me under scrutiny. There is just a single sentence that we should be discussing.

This is your version of that sentence:

"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism."

And this is my version of that sentence:

"This figure includes both Jews by birth as well as converts to Judaism."

Simple question -- why do you think your version is preferable to my version? That is all that I think is legitimately on the table for discussion. Please stick to the discussion of the one sentence that this section of the Talk page is ostensibly about.

This is the edit I am concerned with. I'ld like you to explain why you removed my sentence to replace it with your version. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually this is the edit I'm concerned with. Why did you include the unencyclopedic self-referencing phrase "by which we are referring to..."? Do encyclopedia articles typically refer to themselves using a first-person personal plural pronoun? Do you really think your phrase ", by which we are referring to those who are Jewish by birth," is preferable to "(i.e. Jews by birth)"? And why did you remove the description that Debresser obviously prefers? Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayjg -- I'm not Debresser. Why are you discussing Debresser, as in "…the description that Debresser obviously prefers?" Debresser is another editor, other than me.


 * Mere hours ago you were threatening to take "administrative action" against me. You did so in your edit summary for this edit, which also happens to be the last input either of us had to that sentence. The foregoing is the difference between your version and my version &mdash; over which you were threatening to take "administrative action." The difference between the two sentence versions apparently means a lot to you. Do you no longer have a reason for that edit? Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. I never "threatened to take "administrative action" against you". Please make more accurate talk page comments. Now, explain why you think "by which we are referring to those who are Jewish by birth" is preferable to "(i.e. Jews by birth)". Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayjg -- you have posted here to try to get me blocked, over an incident that you precipitated. Please note that there was no attempt on my part to remove your coveted term "ethnic Jew" from the referred to sentence in question prior to your highhanded tactics of bypassing the discussion which had been going on here on this Talk page for a couple of hours prior to your intervention. I merely tried to define the term "ethnic Jew" for the reader. I made absolutely no attempt to remove that term.


 * I am opposed to pulling the wool over the reader's eyes. And I am opposed to ambiguity. I take the radical view that sentences should always be clear, and that the reader should always know what is being said. You chose not to engage in the dialogue concerning that on this Talk page. You began reverting. You did so twice. As of this moment the page is protected. You precipitated that. By your lights, Bus stop should have no input to the articles that you wish to shape. Bus stop (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More nonsense. I didn't try to get you blocked, and I didn't "begin by reverting" or revert you twice. I edited your wordy, unencyclopedic prose into something sensible, that's all. And as for your claim that you "made absolutely no attempt to remove that term", this edit tells the true story. Please make more accurate talk: page comments. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion is getting very, very much out of hand. I see multiple editors sniping against each other almost exclusively, rarealy addressing the point of discussion. I am in fact tempted to refactor the comments on this page to remove the personal attacks, but realize that would be just as disruptive as anything else. The current argument appears to be about the terms "ethnic Jew" and "Jewish by birth". At present, the latter phrase is used as a section title in the Who Is a Jew? article. However, as someone who is not a Jew of any sort, that I know of anyway, and also someone who has not studies Jewishness particularly, I think "Jewish by birth" is, if anything, lessclear than "etnnic Jew". The word "Jewish" in "Jewish by birth" is open to interpretation (rerligious? ethnic? both? something else?) while the phrase "ethnic Jew" is, at least to my eyes, substantially clearer, because of the fact that it is a phrase in common usage in a particular context and only that context. Granted, I myself would be hard-pressed to provide a dictionary definition of the term, but that is a separate matter entirely. I also think that the phrases "of Jewish descent" and similar would probably also be a bit clearer than "Jewish by birth", because "Jewish" in the latter is itself less than clear.
 * Having said all that, I really think that the best way to procced would be to file an RfC or otherwise appeal for broader input. And I definitely urge all parties currently involved to cease the sniping and commenting on others, as it really just damages the impression those editors give to others. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) John Carter, as I stated above, before Jayjg started unilaterally making edits, I did not care what wording was used, as long as the meaning was crystal clear to the reader. See above.

Slrubenstein said the following:

''On this matter I think we do need a Jewish source, because this is an article on judaism. And we are not allowed to put our own views in an article. If it is just a matter of using the English language clearly, that is up to us. But different ethnic groups have different criteria for membership in the ethnic group so it cannot be what you or I think, it has to be what jews think, that is, Jewish authorities (or historians or sociologists studying Jewish ethnicity). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)''

To which I replied:

''Whatever you do, please be clear that the reader understands what you are saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)''

There was no hostility up until that point. I was contemplating no further moves. I no doubt would have continued in dialogue with Slrubenstein and anyone else with normal, civil, input. But Jayjg unilaterally went to the heart of the matter and imposed his will on it. What was I to do, continue "discussing" on the Talk page? I made an edit which was a perfectly rational edit to his edit. That happened twice -- two edits by Jayjg, and two edits by me. At which point Jayjg was already accusing me widespread abuse, and threatening "administrative action." This was precipitated by Jayjg.

The way of hostility is that it sours the air for everybody. I am not going to engage you in a discussion of "ethnic Jew" now. The atmosphere is now entirely beyond the point of that being possible. But let this be clear -- this ugly circumstance is not of my making. I could not have been more delicate in my communications prior to Jayjg's arrival. He did not at all use the Talk page before making his two edits. And by the edit summary of his second edit he was already threatening me with being blocked. Hey -- he is the administrator. He wins. The atmosphere here is ugly. The article suffers. What else is new?

When things get this ugly I have learned to walk away. The sad thing is that that makes Wikipedia a lesser enterprise. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cut the melodrama. I made a perfectly reasonable edit, cleaning up some unencyclopedic language, and you then used that as an opportunity to excise the term and concept you've been disruptively agitating against for months now. That's the long and the short of it, and it doesn't help to pretend otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw a note by John Carter. As noted, in Judaism, the mother's faith is the dominant. You are of Jewish faith if born of a Jewish faith mother. If your mother is a convert (not "born Jewish") then you are still "born Jewish" = "of Jewish faith." This is different from one's personal blood lineage and whether it purports to trace back to the tribes of Israel ("ethnic Jew"). If you are an "ethnic Jew" and "of Jewish faith", you can renounce your faith and still be an "ethnic Jew." "Ethnic Jew" (blood lineage) and "born Jewish" (religious lineage) are not interchangeable, so let's not mix them up as parenthetical definitions or id est's of each other. I'd also note that "Jewish descent" as a term is ambiguous. Descent relates to blood line, so "Jewish descent" stricly speaking means "ethnic Jewish." However, if you state "descended of a 'Jewish' mother [of Jewish faith implied]", as that context refers simply to a blood line traced back to an individual, that can really only taken in the religious sense implied, meaning "born Jewish." Where there is particular lack of consensus is in the conversion of a mother to Judaism. Orthodox sects largely don't consider it a valid conversion if not to the orthodox faith (that is, to a reform sect/congregation). The practice of faith subsequent to conversion also comes into play regardless of sect, so practice of public ritual, keeping a Jewish house, etc.  So, in succinct terms:
 * "ethnic Jewish" = of Jewish blood lineage
 * "born Jewish" = of Jewish faith by birth (to a mother of Jewish faith)
 * "Jewish descent" = doesn't specify ancestors or mother, blood line or faith, and is open to interpretation although in the proper sense of descent referring to blood line, it means "ethnic Jewish"; for example, one is not of "Lutheran descent."  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your source for saying an ethnic Jew must be ob "blood lineage?" According to our own articl eon ethnicity, one can be a member of an ethnic group through a variety of routes including speaking a language.  One does not always have to have a "blood lineage" (I never hear that phrasing before) connection.  I am speaking about ethnicity in generakl - different ethnic groups have different rules.  I realize that one is Jewish if born of a Jewish mother.  But why can't a convert also be considered an ethnic Jew?  I am not saying she is, I am just asking what the sources say? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go with POV: my Jewish denomination - the largest in North America - states that
 * one is Jewish if born of a Jewish parent and raised as a Jew. A Sniper ::(talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Vecrumba, Do you have sources for any of the above definitions of terminology? Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Allow me to bring this down here. (I had previously posted it higher up in this section.) It is by the BBC, the The British Broadcasting Corporation. A source of the stature of that news organization is a source that we should consider looking to, in order to see how they use a term such as "ethnically Jewish." Here is the article. Find the phrase "ethnically Jewish" in it, and try to decipher the way in which it is used. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Going to etymology "Ta ethne is from Gk. ethnos "band of people living together, nation, people," prop. “people of one's own kind,” from PIE *swedh-no-, suffixed form of base *s(w)e- (see idiom). Sense of "peculiar to a race or nation" is 1851, return to the word's original meaning; that of "different cultural groups" is 1935; and that of "racial, cultural or national minority group" is Amer.Eng. 1945. Ethnicity is from 1953; ethnic cleansing is from 1991." would rather imply that anyone who considers himself a Jew is "ethnically Jewish."  A person, then, of Jewish ancestry who does not identify as being a Jew is not "ethnically Jewish." Collect (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we cannot use etymologies at Wikipedia to determine meaning, we need reliable sources. here is why: a Greek word that meant one thing at the time of Alexander has entered into English and use around the world to mean other things.  Race doesn't help - Romans considered converts to Judaism members of the Jewish "race," Nazis did not.  it is not a matter of right or wrong, Romans or nazis, it is that these words have different meanings depending on the time, place, and race/nation/ethnic group you are talking about.  There is no doubt at all that there is a Jewish ethnic group.  Shaye Cohen suggests that during the Hasmonean time it meant people living in Judea.  People who did not claim descent from Abraham, but who lived in judea, had to obey Jewish law and were considered Jews.  During Roman times thse became somewhat detached and one who obeyed Jewish law was considered Jewish even if not living in Judea. For Cohen, Jewish in this sense is simultaneously a religion and a nation or ethnos. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks everyone knows what Jewish ethnicity means doesn't have a very good understanding of the many different things the term means, in my view. In other words, it's a confusing term -- especially insofar as it is equated to "Jewish by birth" and contrasted to those who become Jewish by conversion. Ethnicity is malleable, so that those who become Jewish by conversion become ethnically Jewish as well as religiously Jewish and are thus "ethnic Jews" (if the term actually means anything). Even this doesn't really capture Jewish ethnicity, least of all in Israel, where one finds a new phenomenon of "sociological conversion" among the Russians who can't become Jewish via orthodox conversion but nonetheless become ethnically Jewish in other ways (on which, see the article by Cohen and Susser, "Jews and Others: Non-Jewish Jews in Israel", in a recent issue of Israel Studies).

So in my view the current text borders on absurd, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name among those who really know the subject. Now, I know better than to get involved in this kind of time sink when there's so little prospect of agreement. I'll add only that I think it's just as disruptive to be intransigent in resisting inclusion of a different perspective as it is to persist in changing the text without consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that post, Nomoskedasticity. Good to hear a little doubt among the ironclad definitions that I've grown so accustomed to hearing. Actually, no one ever goes so far out on a limb to try to define such terms. But all agree that everyone knows what they mean. And everyone uses them with abandon. Peppering sentences with "ethnic Jews" is virtually a favorite pastime around here. This is interesting, because it represents one of the most "responsible" uses of the term I have encountered. And I like it because of the stature of the journalistic outlet choosing to employ just that term, just where they did. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you read too much into the BBC article -- it says that a child wihout any Jewish relative may be excluded from a Jewish school according to a specific court decision. (No parent, no grandparent identifiable as Jewish). Collect (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Which means what? Which means that "ethnically Jewish" translates into what? There is to be found in the BBC article the following sentence: "That does appear to me to put persons who are not ethnically Jewish at a disadvantage as compared with those who are." What is the meaning of the term "ethnically Jewish" in the context of the article? It is only used once in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to keep things in order... to the question regarding sources, this is largely based on what has been imparted to me by those of the Jewish faith, both born and converted, reform and orthodox, including those who had studied the topic in some detail. I realize the "blood line" argument is stilted, but there are clear distinctions between "Jewish" as a race, "Jewish" as a religion, which is all that I address. I did not address "Jewish" ethno-linguistic cultural "identity." These are all inter-related yet separate.
 * "Ethnicity" is a relatively new term which is grossly misused for all sorts of purposes and is often misappropriated as a synonym for and conflated with "identity." I cannot become a member of the Greek ethnic group, for example, no matter how much I conform to Greek linguistic and cultural norms. "Ethnic group" is not malleable, only identity.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, I do not understand how you can say that "ethnicity" is a relatively new term when Jews identified themselves as and ethnic group in Ronman times, indeed as far back as hasmonean times. That is more than half of our recorded history. Nomoskedasticity, thank your, thank you, thank you for bringing an opinion of the article that is based on a reliable source, I wish you would edit this article to incorporate the views expressed on the sources you know. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding my point. Ethnic group or ethnic background or ethnic heritage are terms that have been used for a long time. I suggest we use those long-standing well-defined terms instead of "ethnicity" which is a word which has only been in existence since the 1950's (I think I saw that already noted somewhere) and is bandied about to mean everything from a true ethnic group to personal self-identification and even that any form of self-identification may constitute a new "ethnicity." Having read through the disagreements above, one of the issues I see is the imprecise use of language which leads to ambiguity and opens up the gates for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The first step to consensus is to use terms whose meanings are unambiguous and understood by all participants. One cannot have a cogent discussion of everything it means to be Jewish unless there is a common basis to address all the individual aspects of that being. Hope this clarifies.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 23:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the terms "ethnicity" or "ethnic" do not have one universal, completely agreed on definition, is irrelevant. Few sociological terms have that degree of absolute clarity. Nevertheless, that does not stop the terms from being used and understood both in scientific literature and in common parlance. There are two words in the phrase "ethnic Jew", "ethnic", and "Jew". Neither term has a universally agreed on definition; yet both are widely understood and used, separately and together. Should we excise the term "Jew" from Wikipedia now too? The phrase, in its various forms, gets almost 900 google book hits and almost 3000 Google scholar hits. This is not some obscure, little-used term or concept. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jayjg -- You're an abusive administrator. Instead of cultivating an environment of constructive edits, you deliberately pounce on that which is under contemplation and twist it to your will. You have an obvious need to promote terms, and you have a clear agenda to eliminate thoughtful editors. You are an impediment. The Talk page looks like a scattered battleground because your administrative advantages have been not been used to funnel efforts toward constructive ends, but rather to clashing and discord of every possible variety. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the above. This is getting frustrating. I apologize to Jayjg. My intention is to make every effort to work together; I understand that Jayjg is as concerned as I am about the obtaining the best possible outcome for the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks, they only make you look worse here. Jayjg is posting a very valid point, and from looking at the history, you've been fighting this for a while. You've been banned before don't make it happen again. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 14:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please consider mediation
I agree with what John Carter wrote. It seems to me the discussion on this page has devolved into bickering, whatever good faith editors had has been exhausted, and editors are sniping over the smallest of changes. This process started with the section on kashrut and has accelerated when the lede came under discussion.

May I suggest that we turn to mediation to try to hammer out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties? The poisonous atmosphere here is one of the reasons one editor left Wikipedia and it's driven another editor to give up on this article. Please consider mediation as an alternative to continued bickering. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Malik. Having disinterested admins have to walk in to shut everything down shows the ridiculous nature of what has been happening here. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone take a stab at concisely stating the top two or three key issues? It shouldn't matter whose "side" someone is one, one can characterize their own and their opponents' position(s) without having to agree. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How should "Judaism" be concisely defined in the lede?
 * What weight, if any, should be given in the lede for diffentiation of "ethnic Jews" from other Jews, and how should that differentiation be worded?
 * How should the hatnote be phrased, and which links should be within it? (added)
 * I think this covers the two (hatnote added to make three) most salient discussions above. Collect (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Collect (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you forgot about the hatnote. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can agree to discuss these three issues in orderly sequence here, perhaps formal mediation can be avoided? (That process can take up to six months in some cases). The idea is not to keep having convoluted threaded discussions, but to see what language might be acceptable to the parties here in various compromises. Collect (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do promise go give this much more thought. I do have some suggestions which I hope may help.
 * (A) The article is about Judaism first.
 * The lede is reasonable at first reading. First paragraph, wording such as "Jews consider Judaism..." needs to be replaced with something specific, such as the Torah containing a blessing affirming the covenant.... A faith is what it defines itself to be, it doesn't need to be stated in the form of an opinion ("consider"). Second paragraph is reasonable as well, however, the trailer on Jewish law which is an afterthought on the last paragraph should br integrated into the second paragraph.
 * Where the lede bogs down is the whole section of Jewish population (which in turn points to articles such as "who is a Jew?) etc., expectations and/or regognition of converts, atc. "Numbers", as the article is about Judaism, should be "practitioners of" or "adherents of" Judaism number XYZ. I would limit the lede to noting that there are differing branches and sects, among whom the details of Jewish religious practice, along with who is considered a "Jew," can, and do, vary.
 * I think the hatnote is reasonable, perhaps jiggled a bit... "This article is about Judaism, the religion and its adherents. For broader information on the ethnic, historical [not historic], and cultural aspects of Jewish identity, see Jew.""
 * Does this sort of discussion help at all, or are the problems more intractable? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 02:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would question some of these assumptions. To replace "Jews consider Judaism" with "A faith is what it defines itself to be" is in my view a Christian reading (or conceivably a Muslim reading, that is, the reading of someone who grew up in a society where the major religions were not national religions).  Christians begin with "According to the Torah ..." or "According to the Tanach ..." and end up by identifying themselves as Israel, as the ones who have maintained the Biblical covenant with God.  To suggest that a faith is what it says it is and to suggest putting in a quote from the Torah or the Bible is what Paul does in his epistles - and he argues that how Gentiles read the Torah is as valid as how Jews read the Torah and in fact that the Gentile way of reading the Torah is more authentic than the Jewish reading.  I know Vecrumba didn't say all this, my point most simoply put is (1) I agree there are a number of different ways that one can introduce what Judaism is, the one that Vecrumba suggests is in fact an approach many others have taken before and (2) I do not think that this particular approach is appropriate for the article on Judaism.  As several sources have pointed out, Judaism is in part an expresion of Jewish civilization or culture.  Even according to Midrash Judaism is in part a Jewish response to God.  I think it is essential that "Jews" be the subject of any explanation of Shuar Judaiasm is because it was the Jews as a collective subject that entered into the covenant with God.  If Judaism is not what Jews say it is, then we place this article on the precivipice of a very slippery slope. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Having some experience as a mediator, I strongly recommend that even if you do this informally, you do it by picking apart the issues one by one and extremely specifically. Trying to deal with several at once will get you nowhere. And I do believe you need formal mediation here - it's too much of a mess and too heated. By the way, you can all make a good start by reminding yourself that the other participants are (from what I've seen) all excellent and good faith editors, even if they passionately may disagree with you. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about handling one issue at a time. But I am not sure that Collects obviously good-faith effort below is necessary or useful.  There has been a lot of bickering here, but I am not sure it yet rises to the point where we need mediation.  Thare are some specific conflicts, and so far most of them only involve a couple of people.  I reverted a line Blizzard put in yesterday or the day before.  I provided two basic reasons - my own reason for not liking the language of the line, and also my desire to follow the suggestion made by the last admin who unblocked the page, which is, to discuss changes here before editing.  So far Jayjg is the only person who has expressed a view concerning the line I removed.  I just think there should be some discussion before putting the line back in or putting it in with revised language.  But so far the discussion has been civil.


 * There is a separate discussion about a particular line, in which Bus stop has accused Jayjg of acting incivilly. So far, I don't think many people have gotten involved, and I see no reason why the two cannot work things out.  I myself asked Bus stop a couple of questions and although it turned out that my first reaction was based on a misunderstanding, I thought Bus stop and I resolved that misunderstanding adequately, so I see no reason why others cannot work out the best way to word something.


 * Collect, I honestly see no need for the sections you created, below. We have discrete sections above for the topics under discussion.  Why not just have some patience and let others involve themselves in the discussion until a consensus emerges, which sometimes happens quckly and sometimes takes time.  And then we can make the edit.


 * I do not agree with Peters Vecrumba's attmpt to highlight the main matters of dispute. I am sure this was done in good faith but I actually think it will cause unnecessary contention.  for example, with regards to the disambiguation hat note - I made a change to it last week.  Debresser reverted me and explained why.  There may have been some more back and forth - a couple of more reverts, although no one violated 3RR.  After Debresser explained his reasoning to me, I let it drop.  That was last week and neither I nor anyone else has brought it up since.  So why bring it up again now?  Right now there are only two issues as far as I can tell: Blizzard's edit which he put in over Malik Shabbazz's objections, and which I removed pending discussion on this page.  All I want in this matter is discussion. If a few people reach a consensus to put it back in, I won't fight it.  I really think it is unnecessary, and I think if we put it back in it should be slighly reworded, but right now I am just waiting for others to say what they think.  The second has to do with wording about Jews.  No one onbjects to mentioning Jews in the article, and no one disagrees about mentioning both jews by birth and by conversion, the only question is how best to phrase it, including the question of whether or not to include ethnicity.  I do not think this is well-handled by turning it into a general issue (what weight should ethnic Jews be given) - I know that was a good-faith suggestion, but I do not think it is constructive.  We are editing one particular sentence.  Let's just focus on that sentence, the choices about how to phrase it, and what people thing. Up until now both questions have been in their own section, discussed separately, with no entanglement.  And i see no reason to give up, I say, give both issues more time.  Let's work on these two and then take it from there. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Two very relevant articles
Perhaps some editors are unaware of the Wikipedia articles Ethnoreligious group and Ethnic religion. It seems to me that the first article applies neatle to Jews and the second article fits neatly with Judaism. Simple links to these two existing article in the hatnote and in the first paragraph might resolve all of these conflicts. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the articles. I was going to suggest something along the lines of Judaism being an ethnic religion myself, but didn't know the article existed. I still think that we should probably drop the "cultural, ethical, etc." part of the proposed change to the lead, but substituting in the term "ethnic religion" for just "religion" would probably effectively do the job just as well. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone here knows I have other preferences - for the hatnote and for how that line in the first paragraphis phrased. I still prefer what I have suggested and argued for above, as I consider them most informative and echoing what reliable sources say.  What i want has not changed.  But if using these two articles, and the links to these two articles in the hatnote and in the introduction, mean we can end all this argument and move on to other things, I will accept this in the spirit of compromise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Such as this article is related to Judaism as in Ethnic religion and the article Jew is related to Ethnoreligious group?  Collect (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that those articles are relevant and should be referenced somewhere in the article (perhaps in the Daniel Boyarin section). However I have a hard time accepting a hatnote that says "This article is about the Jewish ethnic religion...." It seems very unwieldy. Without an objection to the simplest phrase- i.e. the Jewish religion- why would we add unnecessary complications? Oxford American Dictionary: Judaism- The monotheistic religion of the Jews. Collins English Dictionary: The religion of the Jews. Random House Dictionary: The monotheistic religion of the Jews. American Heritage Dictionary: The monotheistic religion of the Jews. It's just a hatnote. It should be as simple a reference to the article as possible without taking a stance on an issue. shykee (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to Collect. To Shykee, it does not have to say "ethnic religion." It can say "Judaism is an ethnoreligion". In any event, let us leave dictionaries out of this. if people want a dictionary definition they can go to a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we are not here to define words, we are here to provide an account of something, based on verifiable sources. I have provided reliable sources saying Judaism is a civilization, Judaism is a legal system, Judaism is a way of life. It is these reliable source, not dictionaries, that are the proper sources of an encyclopedia article. Do you want me to return to my own preference? If you want I am perfectly willing to show up every day and sa tat I will not accept any consensus unless it says "Judaism is the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, and philosophy" or something like that. I pointed to the article on Ethnic religion in the spirit of compromise. And Shykee instead uses this as another opportunity to say "Judaism is a religion," period. Okay, if you do not wish to compromise, I will not compromise. I stand by what I proposed. It is informative and echoes the reliable sources. Screw compromise. I tried, and offered a simple solution using an established article. So Shykee doesn't like the way it sounds? Okay, if that is our basis for editing articles, I will back off from the compromise and stick to what is informative and backed by sources, "This article describes the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, philosophy..." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Slow down. Let's give this a couple days to be discussed. For what it's worth, my reason for saying that I think calling Judaism an ethnic religion exclusively is because, like I think Hinduism and a few other groups, but only Hinduism and Judaism of the big religions, (Islam is closely associated with the Arabs, but less homogenous now) it is a religion which seems today to have been substantively formed and defined by religion. So the legal system, culture, and other aspects of the society are all, so far as I can tell anyway, at least partially tied to the religion which more or less served as the basis for that society. But I definitely think that we probably should give the idea at least a few days for people to think it over. And, yes, we can also try to give a few days so that we can find everything that can be reliably sourced regarding the two terms you found. If the sources basically indicate that the religious/cultural ties exhibited in Judaism and Hinduism are basically what defines those two terms, then it would make sense to go with the least redundancy possible. So far, both of the articles you linked to seem in fairly poor shape, and that probably doesn't help. But if those terms basically do, according to the RS's, indicate that the "religion" becomes pervasive of the greater society, and all but impossible to really, effectively, differentiate a few thousand years after their creation, that deserves to be mentioned. Personally, I think they probably will say that. But lets give the idea some time, and give ourselves a chance to develop those articles and see exactly what the sources say about those ideas, first. John Carter (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to assume good faith, but it is hard for me to understand why anyone on this page (and John Carter, I do NOT mean just you) would keep bringing up Hindusim, Christianity, Islam, whatever. This is an article on Judaism.  We want to make it the best posible article on Judaism we can.  What difference does it make if it is or is not like some other article?  I have pointed out important facets of Judaism that belong in the hatnote and first paragraph.  Some people have replied "Well, that is true of Christianity ... (or Hinduism or whatver)."  WELL, SO FRIGGIN WHAT?  If anyone here thinks that the language in the Hinduism article could be clearer or more informative, go improve the Hindusim article.  If someone feels that information here also belongs in the Christianity article go edit the Christianity article.  No one on earth is preventing anyone from changing those articles.  I strongly believe though that as long as the fate of this article is tied to the one on Hinduism or Christiantiy, or shamanism or animism, we will never make progress.  I think that tying the fact of this article to the way the shamanism or animism or any other article is written can only serve to impede progress.  We editors working on this article should make it as good as we can period.  Let people working on the Christianity article make that article as good as they can.  Let people working on the Hinduism article make it as good as they can.


 * As for the articles on Ethnic religion or Ethnoreligious group, I do not presume that they are great articles. Frankly, I do not think that the religion article is that great. I happen to think the Evolution article is much better and if this were just a matter of linking Judaism to a good article, I say, link it to Evolution because that is a fantastic article.  But if quality is not our criteria, but appropriateness, then Ethnic religion and Ethnoreligious group are exactly what Judaism is.  Are those articles sub-par?  Perhaps.  Sadly, my friend, most Wikipedia articles are sub-par.  Who knows - maybe linking this article to those will help lead some new editors to work on those articles.  haven't many of us worked on another article because we followed a link and were diappointed? This is Wikipedia, a constant work in progress, with many poor articles.  Let's just hope others keep joining our project and help improve articles, make them better.  Shouldn't we all operate under the assumption that as Wikipdia grows it will get better?  Let's assume this about the articles on Ethnoreligious group, or Ethnic religion.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I only meant to imply that (1) the religion most Westerners think of when they think "religion" isn't one which qualifies as either term, but that (2) two of the other biggest ones, and a third until recently, do more or less qualify, and that makes those articles important. My favorite theology library isn't available until Sunday, but I'm going to see what I can get on those articles then. If the articles contain more information directly relevant to the topic of Judaism, all the more reason to link to them here. I think links in the relevant articles, including this one, would make sense anyway, but even more sense if the links provide links to more extensive information. I'm hoping in a few days I can improve them, and maybe make links to them an even better idea. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is irregular -- but are we able to discuss those articles here? Seems if we can get the two other interrelated articles in sync, we will be better able to reach a strong compromise here? WP:DEADLINE seems apropos here until we get those done? Collect (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I say, just link relevant articles to this one, and hope that hat happens here is what happens elsewhere; people follow links to articles they find disappointing ... and start work on making them better. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we have reached any strong consensus. Anyone differ? Also, Talk, please understand that I am merely advocating that the hatnote be as simple as possible without taking a stance on an issue. Calling it a religion is the simplest way to describe it. I think we all can agree on that. You have sources that it is something else. Good. Those should be incorporated in the article, not the hatnote. shykee (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling it a religion is taking a stance on it. I accept the fact that many Jews consider it a religion.  You have to accept the fact that many Jews are uncomfortable with the word religion, and refer other ways of describing it.  And if you are not willing to give those other views the same respect that you give your own view, then it sounds like you have no interest in working towards a consensus Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moreover, I think "way of life" is simpler, and more inclusiv because "way of life" can include different kids of religious observance as well as different degrees of Jewish observance. So at a minimum the hat-note should say "Judaism is the Jewish way of life."  If you demand that the word "religion" be in it, I demand that "way of life" be in it.  Do you want to compromise?  I have suggested a number of alternatives.  But if you have zero interest in compromising, then you really are not interested in forming any kind of consensus, are you? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I even suggest an alternative that i rather different from what I favor - but that is simple and I thought accommodates the view you and others hold, a very simple alternative. I don't like it because it is less informative than my version ... but you rejected it just because you didn't like the sound of it.  Look, reaching a compromise entails none of us getting what we most want, don't you understand that? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I certainly accept that there are differing scholarly views on what a religion constitutes and where Judaism falls within those parameters. However, by using the word "ethnoreligion" you are also identifying Judaism as a specific, thereby negating other views. I merely propose that we use the most commonly accepted term- as defined in the overwhelming majority of dictionaries- to identify the article. I am certainly open to suggestions that manage to somehow remain completely non-specific yet still identify the article.shykee (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What other views does it negate? To say Judaism is an ethnoreligion is to say it is a religion, so it is not negating any claim that judaism is a religion.  But who denies that it is an ethnoreligion?  I would think that any movement of Judaism that believes one may be born a Jew, and that being jewish does not depend on the acceptance of a creed bu does depend on a calimed ancestry from Abraham via Jacob, is saying it is an ethnoreligion.  Isn't that what an ethnoreligion is, the religion of a nation?  Please tell me what movement of Judaism denies that Judaism os the religion of "am echad, goy echad?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Perhaps you are correct. Judaism is definitely a religion that results in an ethnicity- undeniably. [However, is it an ethnicity that results in a religion? That is far more questionable. Consider the convert issue for example.] Be that as it may, if indeed the term "ethnoreligion" and the term "religion" do not fundamentally disagree, what is wrong with the simplest term that avoids complicating the hatnote?shykee (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words, the term "religion" alone is as NPOV as possible, because it can be interpreted in many ways when it is used in conjunction with "Judasim". It certainly does not exclude the idea of Judaism being an ethnoreligion. However, the word "ethnoreligion" is specific- Judaism is an ethnoreligion. Period. That's what I find troubling. And by the way, I personally absolutely agree with you that Judaism encompasses far more than a standard religious system. However, when we use the term "religion" in conjunction with "Jewish" it can interpreted as wished. Therefore it seems to me to be the least POV.shykee (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It advocates a POV many Jews reject. NPOV means acknowledging diferent points of view.  You cannot demand that your point of view be recognized without being willing to recognize other points of view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The phrase "the Jewish religion" seems very broad and ambiguous. It can be interpreted in many ways. The phrase "ethnoreligion" cannot be interpreted as anything other than "ethnoreligion". It is more specific and POV. Saying "Jewish religion" does not, it seems to me, negate the possibility of it being an ethnoreligion and seems the most NPOV suggestion yet. shykee (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can say "exactly my point" but you are now just being tendentious. There are Jewish authorities who reject calling Judaism a religion.  So your POV definitely excludes their POVs.  Now you level the same accusation at "ethnoreligion" and I ask you to name any major Jewish authority who would disagree that Judaism is an ethnoreligion.  Every major Jewish authority I know of agrees that Jews are "am echad, goy echad," and all believe that the brit is not just between God and the individual but betweeh God and the Jewish people.  Can you name one major authority on Judaism who rejects these this view? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to the discussion. Do not accuse others of being "tendentious". Instead, assume good faith and the discussion will be much more pleasant for all. Please see my comment in the section above where I have quoted the relevant Wikipedia policy (WP:RELATED). It renders further discussion irrelevant. shykee (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with un-sourced material
The sentence (third paragraph of the lede),

"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism"

...should be removed, because it is not supported by sources. It would be my contention that without supporting sources the inclusion of such an assertion would be irresponsible.

The sentence before it,

"In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13]"

...would seem to be adequately sourced.

But the sources supporting the first sentence do not support the second sentence. Please examine the two sources:

1.) Source #1

2.) Source #2

You will find no mention of "ethnic Jews," "Jews by birth," or "converts to Judaism" in either of the two sources thus far provided. None of that terminology is even encountered in the sources thus far provided.

Though the statistical figures for population may be accurate, and supported by reliable sources, the assertions of the second sentence are not. Bus stop (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, above I proposed an edit to solve THIS problem. Why don't you join that discussion on fixing the problem, rather than creating new sections that just have us ending up arguing about the same thing at three different places?


 * Bus stop, now you are just trolling. No one disputes that Jews are an ethnoreligiousgroup.  No one disputes that one can be jewish by birth or by conversion.  Right now people are discussing at least three different conflicts ... and you want to stat another one?  It seems like all you want is for there to be endless conflict on this page  Why? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein -- You say that "…above I proposed an edit to solve THIS problem." By that, what do you mean? Please show me the proposal you are referring to. Honestly I am unaware of whatever proposal you are referring to. If you would like to somehow bring my attention to it, that would be appreciated. Perhaps cut and paste it down here, if it is relevant. I would appreciate it. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay ... abovethere is a section called "[edit] What weight, if any, should be given in the lede for differentiation of "ethnic Jews" from other Jews, and how should that differentiation be worded?" - you actually contributed a lot to this discussion. A lot of this discussion covers the same ground as the point you raise here.  If you look at the end of that section you will see my proposal.  Some friendly advice: before editing, look at the history of the talk page and see who has "talked" since the last time you looked.  Then you will know what is new.  Be that as it may, that section to which you contributed is discussing what an ethnic group is if indeed the word applies hee, and everythin you wrote here can fit into that section.  What is gained by creating a second section for the same problem, except to make it harder for everyone to follow the discussion? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein -- I see. I'm sorry. I didn't see your proposal before. You even say, "This is what I propose..." Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is okay - I hope you agree that my proposal solves these problems. We have two separate sentences, one making general claims that I think no one would consider controversial, and the other making a specific claim hich requires and has a verifiabl source. I think you raise a valid concern about what is curently in the article - I just think my proposal eliminates the cause for concern.  But I really do think that we should focusing on resolving one problem at a time... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * drop the term "Race". There is no such thing. No respectable anthroplogist would use the term today.Historygypsy (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How should "Judaism" be concisely defined in the lede?
As the first single issue. Collect (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In stead of "refers to sets of beliefs and practices" I'd like to add the word "religion" and use the verb "to be": "is a set of religious beliefs and practises". Debresser (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Debresser. It can be said later in the article that some of the beliefs and practices have been taken on by non-believers, but they appear to have been largely religious in origin, and it makes sense to me to say that. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not limit Judaism to religion, I would say "religious, legal, and cultural" then. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to be difficult, this is more or less based on my own comparative ignorance of the subject. But how many of the religious and cultural aspects do not seem to have been, at least initially, at least in large part religious in origin? Christmas is basically still a religious holiday, despite its being largely secularized recently. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, when we say "practises", that includes legal practises. For me that is enough. You disagree? Debresser (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Query (and I am not laying this forth as anything more than an attempt to address all concerns): If we said "religious, ethical and cultural" (trusting that people will, in fact, include "legal" under ethical) where would we be missing the point? Collect (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps religious and ethical is enough. I'd not like to mix culture up in the religious aspects of Judaism. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Would adding "social" as a compromise to avoid the c-word be reasonable? Collect (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be less true. And the previous argument still applies as well, albeit less. I think "religious and ethical" is sufficient. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfection is not possible <g>. As long as "social" is within reason, let us see how others weigh in.  Collect (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when we say "practices" we could argue that this includes religious practices and so "religious" is unnecessary (God appears more than once in the first paragraph which for me is far more important than the word "religion." Ethics and law are (for better or worse) not the same thing.  But I do welcome Collect bringing it up - we could say "ritual, ethical, legal, and other cultural beliefs and practices" - how about that?  It includes everything I think a variety of sources care about and it is hard for me to see why any one would reject to any single word. "Ritual" is far more precise than religious, which can mean so many different things, but surely, we all agree judaism involves rituals, right?  Also, the distinctions between these words is I think fairly clear.  I strongly support this and I have tried to include or respond to everyone else's ideas. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Judaism is undoubtedly a religion, and the lead reads rather awkwardly ("Judaism ... refers to sets of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible...). Could it say that "Judaism is a religion based on the Hebrew bible and.." (whatever needs to be added to differentiate Judaism from Christianity, which is also in part based on the Hebrew bible). Just a suggestion from an outsider.PiCo (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We could indeed argue with Slrubenstein that "practises" would include religious practises, but the point of this discussion was to stress the religious nature of Judaism. Which I think we can do in a perfect way by saying "religious beliefs and pratices". Debresser (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would rather we comply with our NPOV and V policies, and conform with the sources, rather than what we think. "Ritual, ethical, legal and cultural beliefs and practices" surely includes whatever you mean by "religious, and also includes what other verifiable sources (e.g. Soloon Schechter, Mordecai Kaplan, Emanuel Rackman) have writen. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to stick to sources, then you simply have to add the word religious, because the first thing sources say about Judaism is that it is a religion. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "various beliefs and practices" and leave the issue of how those beliefs and practices are elucidated to the main body of the article? Once we hit multiple adjectives, perhaps we should simply trust the reader? Collect (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Various" is worse than a compromise, it is a weasel-word. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Debresser, I am all for compromise. If it is important to you that the list I proposed begin with the word "religion," I have no objectin to that if it resolves this dispute. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "beliefs and practices" can mean "religion", but it also leaves room for broader interpretations, such as that of influential Jewish thinkers like Mordachai Kaplan or Echad HaAm, both of whom understood Judaism to be an ethnicity that includes a religion, rather than merely a religion by itself. Using the term "religon" to describe Judaism gives undue weight to a particular point of view on Judaism. Clearly the number of words spilled on this issue illustrates the danger of using a phrasing that limits the definition of Judaism to one point of view. Egfrank (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Egfrank is quite right. May I suggest this: for a long time the article's introduction has been stable.  To those who are religious, we mention God in the first paragraph and religion in the second, surely no one can feel this POV is in any way slighted in the article.  To those who blieve Judaism is other or more than a religion, it is described inclusively.  The fact that there has been a lot of arguing over the past week with no consensus emerging tells me that this argument is just a waste of time.  Why don't we all agree to accept the introduction as it is, something that leaves each of us wishing for a little bit more, but something that also gives each of us somthing, and certainly something that can keep a reader reading on to the latter sections.  I think this whole argument has been a colossal waste of time.  In Wikipedia as in any large group effort the question has to be is it good enough and I say the introduction IS.  I and others have pointed out weaknesses in the body, the fact that the body of this article needs fleshing out.  More can be said about Rabbinic theology and hermeneutics, about ethics as they developed from the prophets to mussar, about principles of Rabbinic Jurisprudence.  These are important parts of Judaism that are missing fom the article.  Please, just imagine if instead of expending the time and energy on this argument, we had been working on writing more content for the body of the article.  THAT would have been a real improvement, worth the effort.  Why do people prefer endless arguemtns in circles about a few words in the lead, prefer wasting lots of argument there, over actually researching and writing content that can improve the article?  Is it because the former requires no research, just a tendentious attitude, whereas the second requires research? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I only prefer to add the word "religious", but will agree to keeping things as were also. I'd recommend to change "refers" to "is", though. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I can tell, the lead does use the word "refers." I must be looking at the wrong line - in which sentence would you change "is" to "refers?"  I probably won't object to the change you propose. That would mean three people willing to keep the first paragraph as it is.  After all this discussion it seems to me that this is strong evience that no new consensus is going to emerge ow, and we should close discussion on this topic and just leave the first paragraph as it is Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what I said: change "refers" to "is". Debresser (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a need for "sets of" in the lede? Collect (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd make it "a set of", but yes, I'd keep that. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

One week -- looks like "is a set of beliefs and practices" (a very minor change_ is where we arrived. Collect (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)