Talk:Judaism/Archive 18

History, Antiquity: No mention of Roman Conquest by Pompey in 64 BCE
The history jumps from establishment of second temple to the "Jewish revolt against Roman rule in 66 CE" without mentioning the establishment of Roman sovereignty over this area. I think another sentence is appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Roman_occupation

24.128.254.212 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Steve January 2, 2010


 * I don't have the expertise to add this, but does someone else want to at this time? Or, if you would like to set up a Wikipedia account, I'd be delighted to "adopt" you and help you with using the site.  -- AFriedman   (talk)  04:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this is important - so is the Hasmonean rule. Has anyone read Tcherikover's Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews and Bickerman's From Ezra to the last of the Maccabees?  When I was in college, the debate between the two on the causes of the Hasmonean uprising was the central topic - although that was a long time ago.  I know that work by Saul Lieberman, a long time ago, and Shaye Cohen, mroe recently, is important on 2nd Temple Judaism.  Alas, I read this stuff a LONG time ago and don't have time to look for or through it now.  It would be great if among Wikipedia's thousands of editors there were a couple who had time to do this research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some material in History of the Jews in the Land of Israel that could be used. There's also relevant material in History of ancient Israel and Judah and Hasmonean; the latter is reasonably detailed. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: This is not a discussion forum for Wikipedia and Judaism
This is not WikiProject Judaism. If you would like to discuss ideas related to Wikipedia and Judaism that are not directly related to this encyclopedia article, the appropriate place to discuss them is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Easy-to-remember abbreviations for that page are WT:JUDAISM and WT:JEW. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As one of the offenders, I apologize. Perhaps we could put a template about this at the top of this page?  -- AFriedman   (talk)  02:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A template would make sense; is there a standard template for issues like this? Jayjg (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Canaanite influence section - too long?
It appears to me that the Canaanite influence section is overly long in context; it is, I believe, the longest section in the "History of Judaism" section. Thus the article spends a great deal of time discussing influences which, regardless of your views of their early importance, surely have little impact on Judaism today as compared to, say, the medieval and modern periods, which get comparatively short shrift. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a new article called Origins of Judaism that was recently split off from this one. The materials in question could go there.  -- AFriedman   (talk)  21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, since they are essentially identical, and based on primarily one source, John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Jayjg (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Summarized here. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism section
The "Christianity and Judaism" section has had an "expand" tag on it since May 2008. It's currently one (lengthy) sentence. Should it be expanded? If so, what should it cover, and how long should it be? Jayjg (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be comprehensive? Probably 400K. The current full linked article is missing a huge amount of important material, and then stresses minor stuff. I would suggest we not try on it yet. My suggestion (pending RS linkls which I am pretty sure are available)

''Christianity, having arisen from Judaism, has much in common with Judaism, and much in conflict with Judaism.

''Historically, as the power of Christians as rulers in Europe grew, the conflict with Judaism also grew, with Jews being barred from property ownership or other rights in much of Europe. This was made more complicated by the later rise of Islam with its perceived threat to European Christianity, and the era of the Crusades. (add more on historical changes)

''Anti-semitism also arose, not just on a theological basis (Martin Luther), but on an economic basis, as the Jews were the money-lenders of Europe. This friction has endured to the present.

''Theologically, the key split from Judaism arose in the conflicting views of Sts. Peter and Paul. While Peter appears to find that the laws of the past were still valid, Paul preached that Gentiles were not bound by Jewish laws and traditions. Some present-day Christians adhere to Jewish traditions as Messianic Jews. Other Chistians believe in Revelation and the statement in accord with a traditional Judaism that the priests  shall gather at the end at the Temple Mount with the coming of the Jewish Messiah.

A first stab, to be sure, making the historical and theological sections separate. Collect (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty good! I would say the debate between Peter and Paul is metatheological, because it is paul who creates theology by defining Christianity as a "faith."  If the word theology is to mean anything, Israelite religion and Rabbinic Judaism were pretty anti-theological.  Faith in God is not really an issue in the Bible - it is taken for granted that there are Gods, the question is just, which one will the jews worship (you could say, the jewish God cares more about faithfulness than faith).  Jews talk about God for the vast majority of the time through poetry and narrative stories, not through the language of logical argumentation which I think is the basis of theology.  Some (Max Kadushin, I am sure there are others0 have argued that Judaism is less about faith and more about practice.  Could we say that the debate between Peter 9and many would add James) and Paul was over whether Judaism would be based on practice or based on faith (because Paul considered himself a Jew, not a Christian, he just wanted to use Jesus to start a new Jewish sect that would compete with the Pharisees).  To create Christianity it was not enough for Paul to break with Peter and James, What was also needed was a majority of Christians being Gentile.


 * Also, another decisive difference is over the definition of messiah. For Jews at the time, the messiah was a successful military leader.  The reason this difference is important, really important, is this: it is only when one redefines messiah to mean the son of God crucified and resurected, who would come again to establish God's kingdom which is not of this earth, that ALL sorts of verses of the Bible get reinterpreted.  I realize Christians believe they always had the right interpretation, I am not trying to pick a sectarian fight, but the differences between how Jews interpret the Bible and how Christians intepret the Bible are REALLY important and almost countless, but we can simplify and say that all the conflicts over interpreting the Bible start with the question of how one defines messiah, so this is just as important as circumcising the flesh versus circumscising the spirit. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am unsure as to Judaism being uniform in only having a military Messiah -- as opposed to The Messiah at the Gates of Rome and I really do not want this to get into discussing Lubavitch beliefs here.  If we elide thoat stuff, are we misleading readers? Collect (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Lubavitch did not exist in the first century. And you are right that the Jews had other messiahs, the High Priest was a messaiah, as was Cyrus the great.  But in the context of this discussion, when Pilate asks Jesus if he is the messiah, it is pretty clear that he means "king of the Jews."  That is what they reportedly wrote over his cross.  And king of the Jews = military leader who wins.  However you want to define "messiah," the Christian definition that emerged very quickly after jesus' execution is NOT the one Jews believed in at the time, and was a major source of the split 9which is what I thought your otherwise nice little thing was trying to explain.  The way not to mislead readers is to be clear we are talking about what lead to the split between Christians and Jews; in this discussion other meanings of messiah for Jews at that time are not relevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps noting that the Maccabees (who had ruled until about 60 BC?) were an influential movement within Judaism at the time, and that as a result most Jews of the time viewed a Messiah as a military leader rather than as a spiritual leader? Hope I did not mess that up too much. Collect (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No I do not think you messed much up at all. But the real model of the messiah was David, who is described in many ways as bing a warlord, although his monarchy and lineage is elevated way above that of Saul or the other kings of Israel, and is still remembered today in so many ways e.g. that ornament many Jews wear and is on the flag of Israel is called the "star of David" (in Hebrew, the sheild of David, also the brand of a popular kosher wine).  David was very much a warrior and the kingdom he established was very much of this earth.  This is the meaning of "messiah" for most Jews at the time, when talking about a "deliverer" or "savior" from the Romans.  The Hasmoneans are not a great model ... Judah the Maccabee, yes, but the later Maccabean kings are the ones who lost sovereignty to the Romans, remember?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not quite that old . Collect (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Judaism today section
Is the "Judaism today" section superfluous? We already have a whole article discussing "Judaism today". Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Likely true. All it needs is "Judaism today is almost as fragmented as the Knesset" (please do not take this seriously). Collect (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So we could just delete it? Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless Someone objects, fine by me.  Wait another day I suspect. Collect (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To which article are you referring, Jayjg? Tomertalk 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This one. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The section title "Judaism today" has the implication that the rest of the article is about Judaism in the past. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with previous comment. "Judaism today" is an awful header that should be renamed at once. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I renamed it "Observance/nonobservance." That should be good. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "World Judaism?" I think that is almost as bad as the "Judaism today" name for that section. How about "Global levels of observance"? I think we've got to use a name that reflects the contents accurately of that section, and I don't think the subject is primarily "Judaism around the world." Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some rewriting in the section discussed above. I've also changed the the section title yet again. This time I am trying: "Spectrum of observance". Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, may I give you a word of advise? Consider discussiong things before you make any major changes... Debresser (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Debresser, I think if you compare the "before" to the "after" you will see that I have eliminated that which is not on topic. I have tried to bring the paragraphs into focus. If you disagree, please tell me what changes that I have made that you disagree with. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should get used to it that what you consider uncontroversial and improvements are things that other editors often perceive as controversial, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The section has two paragraphs. The second is basically a random grab-bag of demographic trends. What does it have to do with "Spectrum of observance"? Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Though not stated, intermarriage, which is mentioned in a couple of sentences in the second paragraph, is related to observance, insofar as there is probably a correlation between nonobservance and intermarriage (though not in all cases). And there is a reference to the observance of those considered Baal teshuva. They are an interesting part of the discussion in these two paragraphs. On the one hand you have the trend towards assimilation, and on the other hand you have those who go from being nonobservant to being more observant. I don't think this section is finished being written. But the above is perhaps a good core for what this section could be about. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The xsection has, at best, marginal relevance to much of anything, and appears deletable to me. Collect (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Collect — You see nothing salvageable in the entire section? Can you please explain that? Should we not mention that levels of observance among Jews varies widely? Should we not provide a rough estimate of the percentage of "American Jews" that have "some sort of connection to the religion?" Should we not point out that "Of that population of connected Jews, 80% participated in some sort of Jewish religious observance, but only 48% belonged to a synagogue"? Do you find all of that to be information that serves no purpose?


 * Should we mention birth rates? Intermarriage rates? Should we mention shrinking population over ten year period of time? Should we mention that on the one hand assimilation is tending to reduce the number of religiously observant Jews while kiruv and a consequential Baal teshuva movement tend to increase the number of religiously observant Jews? Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Jews for long discussions on that. This article is about beliefs and traditions primarily. Other material is reasonably to be presented there, rather than here.  Collect (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect — the hatnote atop this article says that this article is about religion. Why wouldn't levels of religious observance be treated here? Why would this article not be covering the forces at play leading to religious observance and religious nonobservance? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And birth rates and the like are clearly not part of the discussion on beliefs and practices. It does, however, fit in with Jews.  Collect (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect — higher birth rates are associated with Orthodox Jews. Therefore it is relevant to the population statistics in relation to observance and nonobservance. I am assuming that the children of Orthodox also tend to be Orthodox. Assimilation and intermarriage closely correlate with nonobservance. These things can't be discussed in isolation. Judaism exists on a spectrum. The point to this section should be to flesh out the continuum that exists between observance and nonobservance. It is not a completed section. Certainly more can and should be added to it. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you put in "higher birth rates are found in devout Catholics"? Or "Mormons have many children"?  Seems it is pretty much asking for anecdotal stuff in an article on beliefs and practices.  And it is not up to us to "assume" anything, nor to put in what we "know".  Sorry -- I do not buy such stuff -- it is the same sort of stuff whcih says "thus and such a group has less intelligence" or the like. It does not belong here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick search finds this here:


 * "Not only do the Orthodox suffer many fewer losses from intermarriage, but their fertility rate is far above the Jewish norm. As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3 children in “modern Orthodox” families to 6.6 in Haredi or “ultra-Orthodox” families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim." Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At best you might have a tidbit for the article on Hasidim. It is, moreover, not particularly relevant here, however.   Blogs, moreover, are not acceptable sources.  And since the material you cite calls its evidence "anecdotal" I doubt that it could ever make it into a WP article . Collect (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we find the following:


 * "Orthodoxy also has higher birthrates than other Jewish communities; sends a much-higher percentage of its children to Jewish day schools; has a much lower intermarriage rate…"


 * There are distinctions in birth rates across the levels of Jewish observance. The more observant Jews tend to have more children per woman.


 * The use of the term "anecdotal," by the way, is only in reference to the findings of one particular hospital in southern New Jersey. "Anecdotal" is not used in reference to the quote that I provided two posts up. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

outdent To me that seems relevant enough here, when properly sourced. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here I find:


 * "Moreover, the increase in the number of seriously Orthodox is significant, even without taking into consideration the effect of today's high Orthodox birthrate, contrasted with the very low non-Orthodox birthrate."


 * and,


 * "Moreover, demographics are working for the Orthodox, since their birthrate is almost uniformly high. It has been estimated that in Israel ultra-Orthodox families are producing 5 to 10 children each, while modern Orthodox families are producing 3 to 5 each."


 * More indication that birth rates tend to vary by level of observance. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the above linked to article is not from a blog. Its origin is an October 2005 article in Commentary magazine.


 * Here is what I think is the same article produced at the web site of the Jewish organization Aish HaTorah:


 * "The cumulative effect of these demographic trends is now being felt and will only become amplified as time goes by. In a community that has long since ceased to replace its natural losses, continued low fertility rates mean that the number of children in the communal pipeline will soon drop sharply, causing a decline over the next decade in enrollments in Jewish schools and other institutions for the young. This will be further accelerated by the losses through intermarriage. Before long, as Bruce Phillips has concluded, "there will be fewer practitioners of Judaism" in the United States, and "this development will at some point become evident in the number and/or size of synagogues and other Jewish institutions.""


 * I think these demographic variations, based it seems on varying birth rates, and tied apparently very closely to levels of religious observance, should be brought out in the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss raw demographics, the place to do it is in Jews. This article is about the religion, not the people. Appropriate material for this article would be material about the adherents of the faith in general, or membership in the various movements. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "raw demographics" merely underpin the levels of religious observance. You can't discuss certain factors in isolation. Much as it might occur to an editor to compartmentalize the presentation of information, that may not always be possible. Jewish religious observance exists on a continuum. Demographics have a bearing on levels of observance. The sources are saying that among Jews in general, high levels of observance are perpetuated by high birth rates, found among those at the most observant end of the spectrum. Sources are also saying that low birth rates, along with other factors such as beginning childbearing at a later point in life, result in fewer observant Jews. These forces are obviously in opposition to one another, resulting in the net effect that we see. Observance is not just about being spiritually inspired, though that may be a factor. Religious observance is also tied demonstrably to such mundane factors as "raw demographics." Bus stop (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. There are no WP:RS that say "high levels of observance are perpetuated by high birth rates"; what they say is that high birth rates are found among Orthodox Jews (not more observant Jews). So you've got your cause and effect mixed up, and you're confused about the difference between observance and Orthodoxy.
 * Please stop already and read Jews, which is the place this information begins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs) 03:56, February 7, 2010


 * Busstop has a history of pushing original reserch. I am beginning to wonde if he is a disruptive editor. I beg Busstop to memorze our WP:NOR policy and be careful to adhere to it, as a way of minimizing future conflcts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethnoreligious group
I'm posting to ask about the term "ethnoreligious group" as used in the article. This is not intended to be a continuation of the above discussion about the ethnic or religious aspects of the identity of the Jewish people, I am specifically asking about the use of that particular term.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that months ago when I read this article, I followed the link to the article "Ethnoreligious group" and found that it has no sources defining the term. I've searched for definitions and found sources using the term, but I've not found any sources that define the term. I've also posted requests on the various wikiproject pages that are listed on that article's talk page, but after several months there are still no sources for the term.

So the questions are - does that term have an academic definition? If it does, where is it defined, and what does it mean? It would be great if there is a source for the definition that could be added to the article about "ethnoreligious group" as a term, and that would also better explain its use in this article.

Please note, I am not questioning the content of this article, I'm just looking into the use of that particular term because the article about that term has not been able to make any significant progress on the defintion. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I regret nobody has answered you yet, but this talk page is hardly the right place either. Do try the helpdesk, or a dictionary. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may want to join or restart the discussion on Talk:Ethnoreligious group or bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. -- AFriedman  (talk)  13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Without questioning the solid advice given by Debresser and AFriedman, I'd think that there is a good deal of work by historians of the Ancient Near East on "national religions" i.e. where diferent nations worshipped their own gods, as a start. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I've checked multiple dictionaries and not found any that include the word "ethnoreligious". I've posted the question at WikiProject Ethnic Groups, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Discrimination, and WikiProject Sociology - there were no responses. On Talk:Ethnoreligious group there has been no responses regarding sources for the term. I've done lots of Google searches, and while I have found sources that use the word "ethnoreligious" as an adjective, I have not found any sources for defintions. I'll try Slrubenstein's suggestion and look into "national religions", maybe that will lead to something more definitive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think no one doubts that there is some important difference between a religion like Judaism, where one must be a member of the nation in order to be obliged to practice the religion, and religions which all people ought to practice, like Christianity, or which anyone may practice, perhaps like some Indian religions. The question is really: how do scholars talk about these distinctons?  What terminology do they use?  And the scholars we ought to care about are historians of religion (homed in history departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies departments, etc.) and scholars of comparative religion (homed in Religion departments).  I think the easiest thing would be to call up some professors who teach on these topics at mjore, notable universitis, and ask them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

References for the history of Maimonides' 13 principles of faith
The section about principles of faith needs more references. I'm having trouble finding good sources online. First, do the 13 principles of faith in the article accurately reflect what Maimonides said, or where do they come from exactly? Mzk1 made the very helpful point that the exact text of Maimonides' principles is very hard to find in languages other than Arabic, which I don't speak. Where can I find good information about the history of the various Jewish principles of faith, especially an internet site I can go to? I'm having trouble getting good references as I try to get citations for the information with the "citation needed" tags. Thanks, AFriedman   (talk)  04:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

black hebrew
could I write a paragraph about black hebrew israelites on the page or make it on my behalf please? preferably on the '4 Jewish religious movements' part thanks Jigglyfidders (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure! No problem! As long as you have good sources, and write with a neutral point of view, we will be happy to add it for you. Just write the paragraph here, and add the tag again when you are ready. Avic enna sis @ 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Hebrews are a fringe religious group who are not considered Jews by the overwhelming majority of the world's Jews. There is no reason for Wikipedia to write about them as if they were a Jewish religious movement. See WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Especially if the Black Hebrew Israelites' religion can be mistaken for Judaism, Judaism might be a place in this article for information about Black Hebrew Israelites. -- AFriedman  (talk)  18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that they should be mentioned somewhere. Please keep us posted how and where. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ritual Question
Just have a quick question I'm hopeful an academic Jewish believer can help answer. According to the article, Sacrifice at the Holy Temple is currently unavailable for purification. Since that's very true, how are the sins of a modern Jew cleansed before G-d? The article doesn’t really expand on that issue. The Traditional Law is very clear on what must be done. Further, G-d never gave Jews an "alternative" to His prior requirement. So then, according to the Law of Moses, can we expand on what a modern Jew is supposed to do  (along with a source)? Ultimately, I think "religion" needs to be taken seriously if we want to be considered "religious". Just a thought. Shalom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the answer is teshuva. But it is just a guess. I have no expertise in this. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can weigh in.


 * I just noticed — even in our article (Teshuva) we have:


 * "'Although sacrifices were required, the most essential part was teshuva, the person bringing the sacrifice would confess his sins. Presently, with the Temple destroyed, atonement may nevertheless be granted by doing teshuva.'"


 * What the above quote indicates is that even in the scenario involving "sacrifices" there was nevertheless a recognition that "teshuva" or "repentance" was a necessary component to becoming "cleansed before G-d." Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting question that I'd like to see a referenced answer to, so I or someone else can add it to the article. It's quite an important topic and if the article hasn't answered this to HBCALI's satisfaction, it needs to be changed. However, general questions about Judaism normally belong at the reference desk, not here. This page is for discussion about how to improve the "Judaism" article. -- AFriedman  (talk)  18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the question is relevant and appropriate. It has the potential for improving the article. It suggests important information that is conspicuously absent from this article at this time. It don't think it is necessarily off-topic. But you make a good point that HBCALI can also consider posting that question to the Humanities reference desk. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it is curcial to note that, following Pul, Christians hae a very distorted notion of sin in Judaism. Remember one of Pul's main points was that Judaism makes us all sinners, since there are too many laws for anyone to possibly obey. Also, Paul argued that without the Temple, Jews had no way to atone for their sins.  That is where Jesus coms in: suddenly there is no burden of the law.  Jesus becomes the sacrifice replacing all those sacrifices without which we are up sh*t creek.


 * Some Jewish thinkers have responded by saying that "impurity" in the Temple was not this catostrophic separation from God. God had rules about how to keep things pure and if something becam impure it as not that complicated to purify it.


 * During the middle ages the Akeda became a BIG object of midrash and one explanation is that Jews were teaching to themselves that contrary to Christian claims God does not need actual sacrifice (and later people like Rav Kook argued that God sked Jews to practice sacrifices because at that time in history that is how pople woshipped their gods; it was to make israel happy - Kook taught that God doesn't need sacrifice and once Israel outgrows that stage of their maturation sacrifice would no longer be required.


 * These sam thinkers also point out that "sin" in the world of the Pharisees and later the Tannaim is not this burdensome thing in Judaism that it is in Christianity, threatening to send a Jew to hell, making a Jew wretched. Not too long after the destruction of the Temple sages taught that Jews could find forgiveness from God by study, prayer, or tsedakah.


 * Finaly, many of the purity laws applied to the Temple were used as a basis for Phariseic halacha about how to eat food at the table, rules of purity were used as a basis for expandingg rules of kashrut and stuff like washing of the hands. In other words, in the Phariseic mind, when Jews eat togethe, in a small way they are reenacting Temple rituals.


 * My point is that Jews responded to the fall of the Temple in multiple and divese ways.


 * The anonynmous questionne write, "Further, G-d never gave Jews an "alternative" to His prior requirement." Of course, Chritians think God gave jesus as the "alternative." But Jews believe that at Sinai God rvealed the Torah she ba'al pe, that every jot and tittle on each letter in the Torah reveals something new about God's message, that for Jews when we study Torah we are doing on earth what Moshe Rabbeinu is doing with God in heaven, that in this way God is always revealing himself to us (through Torah, which one can turn ove, and turn oer again, and keep finding "new" things i.e. keep receiving God's revelation.  I do not think Christians get this, and I suspect that that is what motivated the question. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SLR, thanks. Do you have sources? This very much belongs in the article. -- AFriedman  (talk)  22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot give precise sources. But get Jacob Neusner's Invitation to the Talmud and I think you will find a lot of what Isaid comes from his introduction (and at most the first part of the following chapter).  Paul Boyarin's A Radical Jew is about Paul, and if you look up "pharisees" in the index and just read those pages you will find lots on how Paul mis-understood the Pharisees.  On the Akeda, Shlomo Speigel's The Last Trial again just the introduction.  On how Jews responded to the destruction of the Temple, including the thing about Torah study, prayer and tsedakah, any good history should cover it (e.g. the great one volume edited by HH Ben Sasoon - but I am partial to Jacob Neusner's intro and conclusion to his own version of Perka Avot (Sayings (or Wisdom) of the Fathers), and Shaye JD Cohen's very accessible From the Maccabees to the Mishnah  I am sorry i can't give you precise page numbers but if you are making this article one of your special projects, these books are valuable in many other ways and you will find LOTS of important stuff in them on critical moments in the development of Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oldest to survive today?
Here it says its the oldest to survite today. And on the Hinduism page it says I think something like that Hinduism is the oldest then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We noticed this when we wrote it. Nevertheless, 1. it is sourced 2. The Hinduism article specifies that it is the oldest, only when seen as a continuation of "the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India". Debresser (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of the name/names in the Torah
I believe that there definitely should be a mention that the name Yehuda, the base word for the Jewish people and there respective religion is derived from the two Ancient Hebrew words Yah, a shortened form of the name of G-d, and the Hebrew word Hud which means to follow, worship, or praise. together the words mean "to worship/praise Yah" or "the worship/praising of Yah". This can be confirmed in the Wikipedia article Judah (Bible) where it correctly states that the name means "to praise G-d". Also the biblical name for Judaism, ha-Dër′ëkh (the way), may also be mentioned.


 * I find that less relevant here, because the etymology of the word "Judaism" is firstly from the Kingdom of Judah. That the "Kingdom of Judah" is named after Judah son of Jacob, and the meaning of that name is already of secondary and even tertiary importance. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A call for sources regarding the first sentence
Let's have a look at what the sources do say about this. I'm going to start as broadly as possible myself. I also want to note that the version of the lead that I tried to institute myself did not remove any content from the current lead, it only added "monotheistic religion" to the lead. Point being that I wasn't even trying to replace the "beliefs and practices" with "religion".Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I've quoted more extensively from the Dictionary of World Religions because in this discussion there is more nuance of the sort that some editors here are championing to the extreme. But it is one of many sources, and the others tend to just say ... religion. I'm not averse to nuance at all, please don't misunderstand me, but I just don't get why religion isn't right there like it is in all of these other sources.Griswaldo (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tove is writing: (I do not know where on this page this fits, so I write it here.) We would like to explain the matter about the difference between "Messianic Jews" and "Messianic Christians".

"Messianic Jews" are jews by birth (boys are circumcised) who worships Yehuweh [jeue], YHWH, Israel´s God, and believes that INBI ICHTYS was and is The Son of Him and that INBI ICHTYS was and is the Messiah, and also believes that jewish traditions needs to be commemorated, as well as christian traditions.

"Messianic Christians" are christians "in the nations" (inoculated = not jewish by birth (boys are not circumcised) who worships Yehuweh [jeue], YHWH, Israel´s God, believes that INBI ICHTYS was and is The Son of Him and that INBI ICHTYS was and is the Messiah,and also believes that jewish traditions needs to be commemorated, as well as christian traditions. http://www.messianic-christianity.org/ Skraddarbacken (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Here are some of the relevant sections of WP:NPOV -- I'm quoting verbatim here. Special note should perhaps be taken to the language at the end which is directed explicitly at the application of this policy to articles about "religion".Griswaldo (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from the policy

 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.


 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.


 * An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.


 * Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.


 * Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid.

Discussion
No one wants to exclude any POVs here. It is my opinion that the POV that objects to identifying Judaism as a religion in the first sentence is being given undue weight. I've tried very hard to do exactly what this policy proposes and look at sources, like "commonly accepted reference texts" in order to determine if one "viewpoint is in the majority", which appears to be the case. Perhaps my proposed solution is not the best way to navigate this in terms of NPOV, but then what is? How do we maintain due weight? It seems to me that the criterion for a "significant minority" viewpoint has been met for the "lets not call it a religion" POV. Am I wrong? Did I miss some core issues? I also wonder how we navigate this while not "avoid[ing] using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view?" Please make a suggestion.Griswaldo (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the dictionary would help: monotheistic religion of the Jews, in Webster's, or The religion of the Israelites of the Bible and of the Jews of today in Heritage. Golly, one of the world's foremost books, The World's Religions, by Huston Smith, seems to include Judaism. I'd suggest you guys debate something a bit harder to prove, like whether the Earth is really round, or is just a POV from space. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed this - Talk:Judaism ... or what started this . Clearly I agree that it is a religion, that all reference sources describe it as a religion and that we should also.  Do I regret how much time I've been wasting arguing with people who can't back their arguments with either policy or source evidence?  Of course I do, but understand that I'm powerless to make the necessary change unless there is a consensus here.  Your input is helpful but you may consider toning it down a bit.  What we need are more people to simply admit how hairbrained the current situation is and that it ought to change.  Inciting negative emotions wont help.  Thanks for your input once again.Griswaldo (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your stated goal: What we need are more people to simply admit how hairbrained the current situation is and that it ought to change, may be misguided. It is obvious that the original deleter of the word "religion" is not seeking education or new information. Maybe you guys would like some valid sources where the common  usage of "Judaism" as a "religion" is cited a thousand years before scientists proved the Earth was round. Just say how many sources you need. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ample sources already above. Lets hope this sticks but my experience so far makes me doubt it.Griswaldo (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Wikiwatcher1 for his edit. It's along the lines of my proposal above, and has my full support. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I of course support this as well. If this doesn't get reverted like my change did we should consider doing what Debresser suggested in full.  I'd prefer if it said "... is a religion based upon ..." but that can be discussed later if this takes.Griswaldo (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Shavuah Tov
Folks, you can't resolve anything over Shabbat. Please keep that in mind over the future. You can discuss, but you won't have any observant Jews participating.

In any case, I've cleaned up the awkward first sentence and resolved the problem (hopefully). "The religion of Judaism is..." indicates that the subject is the religion and not "Judaism". That religion is a set of beliefs and practices (uh... the definition of any religion, per the dictionary).

But note that the new first sentence is not delimiting "Judaism" as a religion, but merely delimits the article to the religion of Judaism.

I think that's a useful distinction which focuses the article on the religion, but does not detail everything that is "Judaism"...

...which begs the question of whether we need an umbrella article to deal with everything that uses the name -- including ethnicity and culture.EGMichaels (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not consider this acceptable. The core text of Judaism is the Talmud - it is the torah Shebaal peh in writing, and thus the completion o fthe Torah shebiktav.  (It is of special importance ecause it helps explain why Christians always misread the Bible; they do not have the complete text because they do not know the Torah shbaal peh).  It has six sedarim of equal importance.  Zeraim, about prayer, Moed, about holidays, and Kodashim, about Temple sacrifice, may all correspond to what people mean by "religion."  Tohorot corresponds to things anthropologists find in many cultures, but not strictly what social scientists call religion, but this is an arguable point.  But Nashim and Nezakim correspond to family law and tort law, i.e. civil law.  This article is on Judaism.  I wouldn't object to a section within it on "religious" aspects of Judaism.  But judaism includes things that are non-religious and to exclude them is to rip Judaism in two.  I know Christians are always talking about "the Jewish faith" and insisting that Judaism is a religion because Christianity is a religion.  But this is not how many Jews see it, and not how most scholars of Judaism see it. The Torah (the complete torah) includes moral philosophy and stories that have all sorts of meanings, and are not "religion," but essential to Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SL, a few points:


 * We do need to have all points of view represented here. Certainly there are religious Jews who feel that Judaism, in their religious interpretation, is not a religion -- because a religion is a "faith" and Judaism focuses on practices.


 * In the same way, Evangelical Christians insist that Christianity is not a religion -- because a religion is a "set of practices" and Christianity focuses on belief...


 * And for that matter, truly religious Buddhists insist they are not a religion but a philosophy.


 * However, these kinds of nuances are lost on those who are not interpreting each religion through the prism of a person truly committed to each respective religion.


 * We should consider adding this fascinating tendency for true believers of a "religion" to deny they are a "religion." It's almost a hallmark of the truly religious to insist on any other term.


 * As for the foundation of Judaism -- there's that fuzzy word again: "Torah". The last version of the article I saw had the beliefs and practices coming from the Hebrew Bible, as expounded by the Talmud.  As far as I can tell, that's not inaccurate.  The Talmud claims to be in compliance with the [Written] Torah while at the same time claiming to add things one could never derive from the [written] Torah.


 * This is also a peculiar aspect of a religion -- to claim a unique revelation which cannot be derived by anyone outside of that religion. Christians have Jesus and the Holy Spirit as things one would never guess from the Hebrew Bible, and instead of being embarrassed by the fact that they have someone no one could ever exegetically derive from the Torah they hold this as a key element of what makes Christianity so essential.  Judaism does the same thing with the [Oral] Torah.  Since one could never derive the [Oral] Torah from the [Written] Torah, one MUST interpret the written through the prism of the oral.


 * So, each religion claims special revelation essential to proper practice of God's will.


 * My question for you is this -- if we cannot discuss the religious aspects of Judaism in an article entitled "Judaism", then what title would you prefer?EGMichaels (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein you made the following claim:  I know Christians are always talking about "the Jewish faith" and insisting that Judaism is a religion because Christianity is a religion. But this is not how many Jews see it, and not how most scholars of Judaism see it. The Torah (the complete torah) includes moral philosophy and stories that have all sorts of meanings, and are not "religion," but essential to Judaism. According to most scholars of religion these things are absolutely part of religion. As PiCo mentioned above, and I have mentioned numerous times, this is a false distinction between religion as belief and religion as practice (or "way of life" as someone else put it).  You say that Tohorot is not considered religion by social scientists?  Can you back that up?  According to The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism by Jacob Neusner it is.  In general I have a very hard time with the idea that the fields of study that emphasize "faith" the least, and "practice" the most (the social sciences with the exception of psychology) would claim that Mishnah isn't religion.  If anything social scientists are more likely to discuss the overlap between institutional spheres like law, politics, and "religion".  Just because something is regulating seemingly mundane practices doesn't mean it isn't linked to a religious system.  Would anyone seriously argue that in the history of Judaism the ultimate authority of Mishnah comes from a secular source?Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My main point is that the distinction between religious and secular is a modern distinction - this is something Weber said and most social scientists agree. Modern Jews were forced to answer the question, is Judaism a religion or a nationality, by Napolean.  They had to answer "religion" as a condition for being granted citizenship (later, of course, Zionists decided to answer "nation" instead of religion).  My point is that this distinction is modern and was at a specific moment in history forced upon Jews.  Today Jews struggle to provide different answers, mong thm, religion, culture, national identity, civilization.  But most of Jewish history is pre 1800 and to apply modern terms to all that history is anachronistic.  Without putting the use of religion in application to Judaism in historical perspective, you end up with a very distorted picture. That is why I do not think (since you keep wanting to prolong this RfC) religion belongs in the lead.  It belongs in the article and should be explained and contextualized. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stating so clearly that this is not "what you think". The problem, Slrubenstein, with this conversation and those I slogged through in the archives is that people are always telling us "what [they] think" and rarely showing anyone that what they think is something that should be taken seriously because it is shared by reliable sources and because it reflects Wikipedia policy. You claimed that Tohorot isn't religous, and I provided you with a source that says it is, and you respond with a bunch of your own original research.  This is the same frustrating pattern I've been dealing with on this talk page for days now.  A bunch of people making claims who are unwilling to do any serious work to back them up.  Meanwhile I'm wasting my time doing such work and it is ignored.  I'm pretty sure that WP:Ignore all policy and WP:Ignore all sourcing don't exist.
 * People claimed that the answer was in the archives, so I did an extensive archive review -- Talk:Judaism
 * People claimed that sources backed the current introduction, so I did a review of mainstream reference works -- Talk:Judaism
 * People claimed that the WP:NPOV policy overruled my claims about WP:V so I did an extensive review of that policy -- Talk:Judaism
 * What do I get in return? All of this policy based work is ignored while others refuse to participate in similar work to adjudicate their claims, instead spouting off opinion ceaselessly.  And then it is suggested that I'm asking others do do my work for me.  I'm speechless.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, "speechless"? Ha! You've dominated this discussion and belittled every source you don't agree with—including the Encyclopaedia Judaica, whose definition of Judaism you derided as a mere "claim". If only you were speechless for a little while, so rational people could have a civil discussion and you could have less "fun". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Malik there were three sources presented by you. I critiqued those three sources in one reply and I didn't deride that source as a mere claim.  I said it was on an extreme end of the spectrum for reference sources, of which I provided several that don't follow its lead.  Until now Slrubenstien didn't present any sources.  Thanks for responding with more of the same.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, please. I gave you three paragraphs of sources, a total of eight sources. And your exact words concening EJ were "The third citation claims that Judaism is three seemingly separate things". Maybe if you weren't so hell-bent on belittling other editors, their viewpoints, and sources that disagree with your POV you wouldn't have to lie about what you're doing. Still having fun? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Malik your baiting me now. Your continued references to "having fun" having nothing to do with any content discussions at this entry and appear to be meant to provoke me only.  I see no point in conversing with you.  All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Religion" and Consistency
Since no one seems to have heard me above (and it is slightly tangential to the main thrust of the conversation, I've decided to make a new section for this point: Whether Judaism actually is a religion (or just a religion, or a religion plus. . .), our article here needs to be consistent with its content, hatnote, second paragraph etc. Which side of this debate we come out on matters less to me than that we all recognise that the nafka minnah can't just be whether the first paragraph says "religion" or "set of beliefs and practices".  For us to pretend that that settles it just seems utterly inane to me. Savant1984 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the above. Its a religion, a way of life, a culture and ethnicity. You don't have to practice the religion to be culturally Jewish or ethnically Jewish....Just as there are those who choose to follow and believe the core principles of Judaism but unless they convert, they are not Jewish...and then we cannot forget that the Orthodoxy doesn't recognize "Reform" conversions and "Conservative"s' response is a mixed bag. Sigh...in essence, its hard to categorize something which not all Jews...or the world for that matter...agree upon.-- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 14:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a fair assessment but all so called "religions" are problematized in their own ways by their relation to other social institutions and cultural practices. What is the solution?  If you ask me, since other reference works treat Judaism as "the religion of the Jews" then that should be the primary focus of this entry.  Nuanced discussions where appropriate about ethnic identity and so forth should be included where relevant but there are also other articles specifically relating to these matters already -- see Jews, Jewish identity, Who is a Jew?, Jewish diaspora, Jewish ethnic divisions, Jewish languages, etc.Griswaldo (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record I don't have a problem with EGMichaels' solution that rephrased the first sentence in a way that does not exclude definitions of Judaism as "more than religion", but specifies that this entry is about religion primarily.  For consistency's sake I'm not sure this is preferable but it does conveniently solve that particular problem.  What do others think about this?Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the difference between Jews and, say, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., is that Jews constitute an ethnocultural group independent of religion. Thus there are many secular Jews, atheist Jews, agnostic Jews, "non-practicing" Jews, etc. In this Jews are unusual, and Judaism itself unusual as a result. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem goes a little further, I think. Jews have a habit of mixing ethnicity and religious designation even when speaking of OTHER religions.  I've seen statements such as "belief in Jesus is okay for Christians, but forbidden to Jews."  When I pointed out that Jews who believe in Jesus ARE Christians, the response was "oh, I meant gentiles."  And my own (Anglican) mother uses "Christian" as "Anglo-Saxon."  All of this is anecdotal, of course, and not meant for the article per se -- but it would be nice for us to be aware of this particular problem if we are ever going to agree on a way to embed our disagreed perspectives into a single article.


 * The problem of the term "religion" here is that religions don't want to be classified under a single term which they would share with other religions. Christians, Jews, Buddhists -- each want to have an independent set and not be a subset of a larger set called "religions."


 * That doesn't really work. As I pointed out, religions don't like to be called religions -- and in a perverse way it is almost an ASPECT of a "religion" to not want to be called one.


 * "Remember that you are special and unique... just like everybody else" goes the old saying.


 * I offered my solution so that we would be talking about the religious aspects of Judaism. But then there is the problem that there are other aspects as well.  I think what we need to do is to make a quick list of what aspects there are in "Judaism" and see if there is a single term in the lede which would describe all of those aspects:


 * Judaism is.... (feel free to add to these bullets)EGMichaels (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A religion (normative meaning, as in Rabbinic)
 * A set of religions (Rabbinic, Sadduccean, Essene, Karaite, perhaps Messianic)
 * A nation.
 * A culture.
 * An ethnicity.


 * It might also be worthwhile to list everything that uses the term:


 * Humanist Judaism.
 * Secular Judaism.
 * Political Judaism.
 * Karaite Judaism.
 * Orthodox Judaism.
 * Messianic Judaism (note this isn't even in the same religious category, but a Christian group).


 * In effect, we may find that "Judaism" is simply "Anything in which Jews have identified at some time."


 * Even detractors of "Judaism" have identified non-religious things to be "Jewish", such as the Nazi's identifying Communism as a form of Judaism. And although none of us want to be associated with Nazis, it would be well if we would be aware of the fluidity of the term in both internal and external, friendly and abusive -- uses.EGMichaels (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, most of what Jews have identified with in any systematic fashion throughout history have been part of their religious life. The fact that being religious historically to Jews has not only included praying, attending religious services, etc. does not make it non-religious.  I'd love to see discussions prior to the 18th century that separate a Jewish way of life from the Jewish religion -- from the relationship between the nation and it's God.  Do they exist?  Separating the two makes no sense until "secularism" and "atheism" started creeping into Western consciousness.  One of the sources I quoted above states -- "Today a distinction is frequently drawn between ‘secular’ or ‘cultural’ Judaism (denoting those who accept the history and values of Judaism, but who do not observe the details of Torah) and ‘religious’ Judaism, which implies acceptance of Torah. Even then, there are major differences in the ways in which Torah is brought to bear on life, among the major divisions of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Progressive, Reconstructionist, and Liberal Judaism."   The real problem here doesn't even have to do with Judaism but with Christianity, which is in reality probably the odd duck in the first place.  Many Christian communities do not have the rich ritual tapestry and social conventions that we might associate with communities that are Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, etc.  When you take away God basically nothing remains.  There is no tradition to hold onto to.  When, on the other hand, you take away God in other traditions there are still ways of eating, ways of celebrating, ways doing all kinds of things that tie these now non-theistic individuals back to the original religious community.  The dual move of maintaining these practices but distancing oneself from "religion" is brought forth from a tension between atheism, humanism and other ideologically secular movements and what they most identify as religion -- Christianity.Griswaldo (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that it is clearly not uncommon for people who identify with Christian religious communities that have a richer culture of practice (as opposed to a strict focus belief) to still identify with and be identified with the traditional religion despite "losing their faith". See lapsed catholics for instance.  Ethnic identifications also often intensify levels of affiliation without belief, or without completely observant practice.  This may also be the case for Protestants, but I'm using Protestantism as a foil here because in a general sense it is arguably often on the other end of the spectrum.Griswaldo (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Jayjg -- Of course, see the article titled Jew. But you can apply every one of those identities to Buddhists as well.  Secular Buddhists, atheist Buddhists, agnostic Buddhists, "non-practicing" Buddhists, etc.  The irony is that the categories used to define an "atheist Jew" as non-religious are borrowed from Protestant Christianity.  While you can have "non-practicing" Protestants, it certainly does not make sense to be a non-theistic Protestant.  But it does, and always has, made sense to be a non-theistic Buddhist.  Religion is not defined by theism, or by the Protestant stress on faith and belief.  If it were we'd only have one religion.  Protestantism.  Judaism, like other religions that have come in contact with Western Christianity has always had to wrestle with Christianity's particular construction of religion.  The answer usually is ... we're not like them.  Bingo, but this construction of religion is not the scholarly construction of religion.  There is an irony inherent in the idea that such and such is not a religion, because in order to be a religion you have to be religious like a Protestant is.  This is cultural imperialism coming in through the back-door.  As long as that argument is made, despite academic categories that are much more inclusive and fluid, those making it are held captive by Protestant ideals.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Secular Humanistic Judaism a "religion"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See my answer to EGM just above. It depends on what you call religion.  Would Secular Humanist Jews want that label.  Never in a million years.  Do I think they may still partake in religious practices.  Yes certainly.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Who cares what Griswaldo thinks? They are partaking of Jewish culture, not Jewish religion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would seem odd to me to state that something that describes itself, in its name, as "Secular", is a "religion". "Secular" means "apart from religion". Certainly there are many movements that have religious characteristics; one could argue that, say, Maoism or the personality cult built around Kim Jong-il have many of the properties one would normally ascribe to a "religion". But would one actually describe them that way? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly there are several "new religious movements" that do not self-identify with that phrase, but scholars still use it. The problem revolves around different criteria for inclusion in a category.  For instance, in this case the Secular Humanist Jew probably holds that "religion" necessarily include some aspect that they do not believe in or embody, like for instance "belief in God".  An outside observer may say, however, that belief in God is not an essential characteristic of religion and because the Secular Humanist Jew still behaves and believes in such and such way they are religious.  What we have to remember always is that the generally agreed upon criteria for a category in scholarship maybe different, or in fact in direct conflict with native categories.  I firmly believe however, because of how WP:NPOV and WP:V read that we are supposed to utilize scholarly categories, to the best of our ability, rather than insider categories.  I'm not going to argue here that Humanistic Judaism is certainly a religion, or is always religious.  But you can't simply take their word for it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but it is my reading of policy that when there is a majority view in scholarship we are to use the technical language that is inline with that POV while also making room for attributable significant minority POVs, like those of Secular Humanist Jews. I went through the trouble of doing the exercise above, Talk:Judaism after someone accused me of not understanding that policy.  Is my reading wrong?Griswaldo (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Gris, the problem has to do with the application of NPOV in the lede versus the rest of the article.


 * For inclusion in the article one needs to have at least one notable source which includes the view.
 * For exclusion in the lede one needs to have at least one notable source which contradicts the view.

For instance, the article Genesis creation narrative. In the title and lede the previous version was "Genesis creation myth." Although "myth" is required in the body because it can be supported in sources, it is incorrect for the lede because it can be contradicted in sources. The lede, especially the first sentence, should not contradict ANY part of the article. It may contain reference to a controversy, but only specifically as a controversy. So, one could say perhaps that "The status of Judaism as a religion is a controversy" but one should not say "Judaism is a religion" or "Judaism is not a religion" when there is a controversy involved.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem on Wikipedia.EGMichaels (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring common definition
While you all discuss whether all of the world's encyclopedias, dictionaries, histories, are correct or should be thrown away, I am restoring the recognized definition (see also ). I would also ask for volunteer letter-writers: As there are over 1,000 books with "Jewish religion" in their title, we should let all those publishers know that they may have to retitle their books pending resolution of this issue. Please add your name and how many publishers you can write to. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dude, if people want to know what the dictionary, they can uh, well, go read the ... YES! The Dictionary!!!


 * This is not the place to push your own agenda. That is a clear violation of WP policy.  This is a place to do serious research to craft an intelligent encyclopedia.  The current version is the result of just that:


 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 15 cites Mordecai Kaplan 1934, Joseph B. Soloveitchik 1983 [1944], and Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999.
 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 15 has these links:  . It also cites Gilbert Rosenthal 1974.
 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 16 cites Encyclopaedia Judaica.

These are reliable sources of significant views, per our NPOV policy. If any online dictionary allows any unqualified crusader to edit, maybe you should go there and pitch in. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Citing talk page discussions, without giving any specific rationale for deleting verifiable descriptions, lacks any support by WP Guidelines. Removing citable sources by alleging bad faith in others, i.e. by pushing agendas, is a serious violation of WP:AGF policies. Please state your problems clearly, without using circular links. If you find a dictionary as without a NPOV, please explain why. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The neutral and fully verifiable lead may include some redundant text which should be trimmed or moved to the body. Any comments on the new phrasing can be made here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep this straight:
 * You reject the consensus version
 * You reject a version that uses verifiable and reliable sources
 * Your idea of research is to look up a word in the dictionary.

Well, aside from the fact that you are violating Wikipedia policy ("For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary. Dictionary definitions should be transwikied there."), you are showing contempt for an encyclopedia that should be based on actual research, and contempt for editors who have done real research. You ignore the comments of experienced editors. All the signs of a disruptive editor. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Wikiwatcher that a dictionary is a good place to start, I'd have to agree with Sl that it's not a good place to stop.EGMichaels (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Above there are several reference sources published by Oxford University Press in different disciplines that are not simply the dictionary. Claiming that this amounts to only consulting the dictionary is not fair at all.  Slrubenstein, the links you provide are to primary sources.  The first book you reference is over 70 years old.  The Encyclopedia Judaica is a reliable reference source but it appears not to be presenting a common version of all this -- once again see the MANY Oxford sources above.  Can I ask once again how you can justify this being more than "a significant minority POV" as expressed in the WP:NPOV policy?  Do you have other reference sources?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For reference once gain here's the language from WP:NPOV -- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; That's texts, plural.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is the Encyclopedia Judaica not a reliable source about Judaism?EGMichaels (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it wasn't. I said, and quote "The Enclyclopedia Judaica is a reliable source".  I was asking for reference sources in the plural because that's what the policy asks for.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay -- sorry. Long day.  Can't even read simple English ;-).  Time to crash.  Night.EGMichaels (talk)

Edit warring
Please stop edit-warring. The RfC is barely a few days old. How the article reads for the next few weeks, while the issue is discussed here, just isn't that important. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CantorFriedman (talk • contribs) 08:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As do I. I've been considering protecting or asking for protection and will if this doesn't stop. I'll be warning at least one specific editor here about edit warring on more than just this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doug I hope you don't single out only that editor as there is another who has many more reverts under his belt in this edit war. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I always get amused when a person is accused of edit warring.... apparently with no one. "France has declared war..." on who?EGMichaels (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It usually takes at least two parties to edit-war. Yesterday I left Slrubenstein a note about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with the changed first sentence
I appreciate Slrubenstein's recent change to the introduction but I think some issues remain and some new issues have now cropped up. Any thoughts about this?Griswaldo (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The consistency issue which was brought up several times by Savant1984 still remains. See most recently here -- Talk:Judaism.  The hatnote claims the article is about religion but the first sentence, which is here acting as a definition (see LEDE), expands the subject matter to "religion, philosophy and way of life".  I think the recent change improves this issue but I think it still remains to some extent or another.  We still need to ask what the subject matter of the entry is and/or ought to be.  Is philosophy covered in the entry?  I the Jewish way of life, as something separate from "philosophy" and "religion" covered in the entry?  If they are not it makes no sense to mention them in the introduction.  If they are the hatnote makes no sense.
 * 2) A new issue has arisen with the first sentence because it is directly quoting one source. The first sentence, acting as a definition or broad description of the subject matter dealt with in the entry should not require a word for word quote from any source.  This is of course related to the point above.  If it reflects the subject matter of the entry then it reflects this subject matter and we don't need to quote a source for this.


 * IMO, smothering the first sentence with the multi-language derivative of the word, acts as barrier to readability. That material should be put in the body. It was, but restored without rationale. It is also a very bad sign, IMO, when the lead needs 19 citations, since the body should have explained all the lead material with cites. In cases where a statement is "likely to be disputed," it's OK to add the cite again. That's partly why you made a RfC. As a result you get comments like the following which simply creates obfuscation and stalemate to even common definitions, like the ones earlier in your RfC:
 * . . . one should not say "Judaism is a religion" or "Judaism is not a religion" when there is a controversy involved.
 * As a result, dictionary and encyclopedia definitions become a subject of "controversy" and deleted, and simple statements gets turned into edit warring, despite the RfC. I'm sorry that the other watchers have chosen to sit on the sidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I to am sorry that others are sitting on the sidelines.Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We're just talking about the lede. The lede should perhaps list a controversy but leave the conclusion or finer points to the body of the article.  That's hardly obfuscation.  It's merely good arrangement.EGMichaels (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM what about the points I raised? Should the primary description of the subject be a word for word quote?  Should the hatnote describing the subject matter of the entry be different from the first sentence that also does this? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm unclear what the problem is. The term "religion" is contested, and so it belongs in a spot in which it can be more completely discussed.  However, the person who raised the issue has found a suitable compromise -- with a quote and a source.  Why not quit while you're ahead?  Looks like you won.  Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good.EGMichaels (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM editing Wikipedia should not be about "winning" against "enemies". I have two earnest and related questions about sentence.  1) Should we use a direct quote from a source in the initial definitional description of the subject matter?  Yes or no (very simply question) and 2) is there still an inconsistency between the hatnote and the first sentence? Yes or no.  I raised these issues to get feeback on these issues and I'd appreciate some comments by people who actually intend to do so.  Best.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just remove the quotation marks? I like the definition though. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That was one option I was pondering. I wasn't sure if that is a copyright violation.  Since you like the definition do you mind weighing in on whether or not it reflects the content of the entry?  Can you pinpoint the "philosophy" and "way of life" content that isn't religious? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo raises some important issues. As he notes, more people need to voice their views here - many people watch this article. I'll just express my opinion. First, I see no problem opening with a quote, other articles sometimes do this. Wikipedia is not your conventional encyclopedia, and as long as the first line reads well and is acceptable to us, quotations marks should not be an obstacle. Second, hatnotes should never dictate article content; they should describe the article and if the contents of the article changes, so should the hatnote. The only reason we have a hatnote is to distinguish this article from Jews - that is it, it has a disambiguation function. Clearly, this article is still distinct from "Jews," and even if we add more information on Jewish philosophy and Jewish ways of life, it will remain distinct from the article on Jews, and this is the objective of the hatnote, to keep the Judaism and Jews articles distinct. So I think the hatnote should be updated to reflect what this article is about, bearing in mind that its purpose is to diastinguish it from Jews.

If you don't mind, I'd like to raise a related issue, since the bigger discussion is the scope of the article. If we are to make any major changes, I think the "demographics" section should be moved in toto to the article on Jews. I think we have a separate article on Jewish history. I have a more radical proposal, that the entire section on Jewish history be removed from this article and merged, if necessary, with the article on Jewish history - this is as much a mechanical issue as a conceptual on, this article is long and I don't see any reason to repeat what it is in the Jewish history article (or articles). Jewish history is long, and there are lots of books on it - so I am proposing that Jewish studies be led by three main articles, on Jews, Jewish history, and Judaism. If we can move some material in this article into the other two, we could have a longer section on Jewish philosophy. And we could also have a more nuanced discussion of Rabbinic literature - we are top heavy on halachah right now, and as important as that is, the Talmud is full of aggadah also that merits equal coverage. Moreover, Neusner argues that the Talmos is not just about its contents (halachah and aggadah), it has its own mythos, in which the act of studying Talmud is to join Moses in heaven studying Talmud, and in which the study of Talmud itself is mimetic of the dialogue and dialectics that constitute Talmudic argumentation - discussing this reveals something about Judaism that is important and missing from the current article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to so you don't have to use s/he ... I'm a he :).Griswaldo (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient origins
The sentence in the lead's 2nd sentence begins, "Originating in the Hebrew Bible . . .", which brings up some issues worth considering:
 * Is this accurate, since it's basically saying that Judaism originated in the Hebrew Bible? "Described" might be a more logical term, but is still not fully accurate;
 * As there was no other bible at the time, caution needs to be used when using the term "Hebrew Bible." Do we describe the origin from the perspective of the Israelites, or from today, or both?
 * In the same 2nd sentence, it continues with "Jews consider Judaism to be . . ." However, it's safe to say that most, if not all, other faiths agree with the basic definition, so it seems restictive to imply that only Jews consider this explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The first two points are valid points and need further clarification.
 * How exactly the other faiths must agree on what the Judaism is? This does not even make sense? It is like asking someone in Nairobi on what being French means and then deduce who is French on this definition. A.Cython (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Material removed w/o cause
The cited material below was removed along with some other edits, and as there was no rationale or explanation given, I assume it was done in error as part of the much larger edit. As it ties in directly with the subjects in the 2nd paragraph, it seems to add value, and should be added back, IMO.
 * Religion scholar Huston Smith notes that "one third of our Western civilization bears the mark of its Jewish ancestry," and historian Edward Gibbon writes that "the divine authority of Moses and the prophets was admitted, and even established, as the firmest basis of Christianity." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it belongs in an article on Christianity, or Western Civilization. But I have to admit, I wonder what the one third part actually is. I personally have found Christians most ignorant about the Talmud, and see little if no trace of the Talmud on Western culture. And I am talking about the fulfillment of the law, here, without which one cannot understand the Hebrew Bible. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to rephrase that as "without which one cannot understand the Hebrew Bible in a Jewish way." I think you'll get buyin from more POVs that way.EGMichaels (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My question was for my own edification, and not related to where I think the passage belongs. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is from a scholar's work and a direct quote. Verifiable sources are required, not agreement or full understanding by all editors. I included the source link above. Note that this phrase, from a long chapter, is the first sentence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of using a non-verifiable source. I am saying that it belongs in a different article. Please respond to the objection I did make, and not to one I did not make.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to constrain the hyperbolic comments of people from religious studies on things that are not in their field? I do not doubt the significance of Jewish impact on Western civilisation but I find it hard to accept that it is a third of western civilisation. Where is the logic behind this conclusion? And yes I read the chapters from the books. I suspect that the other two are the Greek and Roman influence... but that leaves outside so many other significant influences. It is best to avoid quotes that are not supported by scholar works and/or facts or when they overemphasise the significance of something.
 * Moreover, scholars that lived two or three or even more centuries ago should be used with extra caution since the way they were writing then may not have been completely objective. I mean what exactly does "divine authority" actually mean? How can anyone verify that? Either the author was writing a lie or was biased because of his faith.A.Cython (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the key Wikipedia rule of verifiability means nothing to you guys and everyone simply ignores it, despite it being repeated. This creates a good news/bad news situation: The "Good news" is that since no one can make any serious objections, the material clearly belongs; the "Bad news" is that no serious editors are commenting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously verifiability means everything to me and I pay heed to it everytime I edit Wikipedia. I repeat: I never objected to your sources, I only stated that the material belongs in another article. Please respond to the objection I made, not the objection I did not make. Do not accuse me of not being a serious editor when you cannot back it up. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote,
 * I have to admit, I wonder what the one third part actually is. I personally have found Christians most ignorant about the Talmud, and see little if no trace of the Talmud on Western culture. And I am talking about the fulfillment of the law, here, without which one cannot understand the Hebrew Bible.
 * This, along with similar comments from A.Cython, who you called in for "help," undermine and ignore the essence of WP:V, and focus on what editors personally believe. As part of A.Cython's objection, he writes:
 * I mean what exactly does "divine authority" actually mean? How can anyone verify that?
 * These kinds of comments, and avoiding V, do not strike me as a serious part of this discussion. They're irrelevant here. We are not disussing editor's personal opinions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? At which point I expressed my personal opinion? I would be grateful to stop making accusations! I simply said that what the author writes cannot be verified. Can you verify that there is god. No. Noone can. It is all about faith. Therefore the "divine" in anything Moses did or did not do (there are no historical evidence for the existence of Moses... see my input again when you tried to fork into the democracy article about its so called "biblical foundations" based on old religious studies) is completely irrelevant with anything real. So using a easily questionable quote in the article will be irrelevant. I don't really care what the sources say but I do care whether what the sources are reliable or can be verified.


 * And since you have learned how to throw to other peoples faces WP rules then you start learning to read them.
 * Verifiability: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."
 * No original research "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."


 * The bloody issue here is that these quotes are not directly related with the current article or that are not reliable enough since they can easily challenged. However, the quotes in question can be used as a inline citation to support say a statement like the "jewish contribution to western civilization was significant" which something acceptable. But the quotes themselves are irrelevant with the current article or directly used in the article as quotes since many quotes can be found via say google books to dispute them leading to lowering the quality of the article.A.Cython (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "I wonder." If english is not your native language pleas just look this up in the dictionary. I was simply asking for more information. What part of that is an "objection?" To ask for more information is to express curiosity, not an objectivion. But I did objct, and for the third time, my objection was: I think it belongs in another article. No where have I raised the question of verifiability. Yet for the third time, you bring up verifiability. So please just tell me: do you really not understand basic English? Or are you that much of a stupid moron that when someone says that the material could be incorporated into another article, you somehow think that = saying it violates policy and cannot be included in Wikipedia? Or are you psychotic, and di you hallucinate some verifiability objection when no one said it? Or are you on drugs, or some chemical that could explain your hallucinating? Or are you just a troll, here to waste people's time when we could all really be working on improving the article? What is the point of your continually criticizing editors here? You must realize that it is not going to lead us to put the material back into the article (unless you really are a stupid moron e.g. someone who, when discovering that something does not work, keeps trying it thinking it will work the next time, I think this is a workable definition of moron, or maybe idiot). What exactly do yo wish to accomplish? Why do you think your current trolling will accomplish that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw this issue raised at WP:RSN and came here to take a look at it. I don't see a problem with the use of the Huston Smith and Edward Gibbon quotes; Smith is a contemporary academic scholar of comparative religion, and Gibbon was a notable historian of ancient Rome. Their opinions on the influence of Judaism may be worth noting in Wikipedia. (However, the Gibbon quote needs to be sourced to an edition of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, not to an Icon Group publication.) On the other hand, if other scholars have said that Judaism has had relatively little influence on Western civilization and Christianity, they could be quoted as well. But the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors as to how knowledgeable Christians are about the Talmud are not relevant to this issue. Furthermore, from the context of the "divine authority" quote, it appears that the quote is meant to indicate that Christian leaders asserted that Moses and the Jewish prophets had divine authority and that Christians relied on Moses and the prophets as a source for their religion -- not necessarily that Gibbon himself, much less Wikipedia, asserts that Moses and the prophets in fact possessed divine authority. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Metropolitan90 said, and I'll add that User:Slrubenstein should review WP:No personal attacks. Saying that another editor may be "on drugs", and "a stupid moron" are extremely serious violations of that policy. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone, including Wikiwatcher, should keep that policy in mind WP:NPA. Wikiwatcher needs to establish the relevance of the material, and needs to make a good argument for using those sources.  The source from 1880 is pretty much a primary source for sentiments held by scholars of religion during that period and no longer a reliable secondary or tertiary source on religion.  Huston Smith's various broad generalizing pontifications about Western Civilization should be used with extreme caution.  His book was written as a general popular introduction to the World's Religions and is very seriously biased towards his own philosophical perspective on religion that completely overstates universal truth and downplays particularism and difference.  This is well known within the field and no contemporary scholar would look to that book to source anything.   I agree that the responses from Slrubenstein and A.Cython have not been the most productive, but the issue here is not simply WP:V in the sense of verifying the statements.  The issues are how reliable are these sources for these statements and are they even relevant to this entry in the first place.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A quick note about Wikiwatcher1. This is not the first time this user uses not reliable enough sources to push his/her agenda, see here for inserting a section about the biblical foundations of democracy by Moses and here simply started to delete staff . The user repeatedly avoided to cooperate or recognise more recent and/or reliable sources which were negating his/her sources . His/her actions here follow the same tactic suggesting that either he/she totally biased or he/she is trolling.A.Cython (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We all appreciate your added examples and bulleted "quick notes" of how not to assume good faith by offering allegations of "pushing agendas." As if you didn't have any when you first came to this article when invited to offer "help." Your compounded personal attacks when told not to do so is making a mockery of Wiki's guidelines for proper behavior. When I once requested a clarification for your edits on your talk page, your response was "Don't push it!" You have added absolutely nothing to this article yet feel compelled to join the party and badger other editors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can assume good faith once, twice... but after that it is a different story so... again don't push it. As for the deleted material there was no good reason to delete staff since i had told you before in WP we do not delete staff unless the particular segments are completely irrelevant or rubbish. In your case you simply either insert staff from not relevant/reliable sources or deleting certain parts of an article need improvements which are having WP warnings and you simply delete them. As far for my allegations, well... I do not know how else to describe your intelligent and polite replies which completely disregard and any form of dialogue/communication. Your actions leave me no room for doubt.
 * If you indeed do care about WP then prove us wrong. Stop complaining and do what user Griswaldo has suggested above. In both this article and the article of democracy attempt to "establish the relevance of the material, and needs to make a good argument for using those sources." A.Cython (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Jewish religion"
I just had a look at this page after linking to it from Genesis creation narrative and I find it odd that the introduction does not identify Judaism as a religion. There is a note above the introduction that says "This article is about the Jewish religion". Fair enough so why isn't it simply called a religion? I'm quite confused about this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Judaism is obviously a religion. But, for reasons that escape me, it is not called that in the intro to this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we fix the entry to reflect this? I don't want to step on anyone's toes and have no intention to edit the entry in any other regard.Griswaldo (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the fun of it, go ahead and try to alter the wording of it. I think it would be like poking one's finger into a hornet's nest. There are archive pages bursting at the seams containing discussion on the wording that you see in the intro now. But I agree with you that it would be simpler and more correct to simply call Judaism a religion. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like fun.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And it was reverted. Can someone please come here and explain this situation clearly to me? You cannot expect newcomers to dig through archives to figure out why one of the world's most emblematic religions is not identified as one in the introduction to our entry on it. I'm sorry but it's like some bad joke. The least you all can do is engage in conversation about this. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Extensive. Extremely extensive discussions prior on this talk page (see archives also, especially archive 17). Collect (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to look in these archives but I'd just like to say once again that "see archives" is pretty off putting and weird. If it is important enough then you all should create an essay that is easy to read about this.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP does not promote essays on topics which were extensively discussed. The tradition is, in fact, to point people to the relevant archives so that they may read the full discussions. Essays tend to provide only a single point of view. Collect (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please point me to the correct archive then. I found extensive discussion of the hatnote in archive 17 and not about the rationale for not plainly stating in the introduction that this is a religion.  Can you please direct me to the right archive.  Also are you sure that it is customary not to discuss things like this when they come up and instead to point people to old archives?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Archive 16 also has such a discussion.  You are certainly welcome to seek a change of consensus, but doing so without being familiar with the older discussions handicaps you greatly. Collect (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in general you are correct about familiarizing oneself with past discussions. I will however note that the archive you did point me to contained general discussions about Judaism, about being Jewish, etc. without reliance on good sources.  Is this what I'm going to find in the rest of the discussion?  I'll tell you quite frankly why this issue is so shocking to me.  I study and teach religion and I have never come across any reference works or introductory texts that would not clearly identify Judaism as a religion -- mind you I'm not talking about the meanings of "Jewish" or "Jew", but Judaism.  So I have a hard time understanding how the current situation could have been in line with our conventions of verification and reliable sourcing.  But I'll have a look now.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see below my suspicion is confirmed and I remain perplexed. The "see archives" now, after looking at them, takes on an even less pleasant color given what a royal waste of time it has been.  I do not question your good faith, but please understand that this is very frustrating indeed.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that reading archived discussions is frustrating. Judaism is a way of life, not just a religion ("a set of beliefs", according to Wikipedia). That's not just my opinion, it's a view shared by highly-regarded experts from all Jewish religious movements (and non-religious movements, such as Humanistic Judaism). Sources are available in the archives. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the archives? Shouldn't a source be in the article? I see no source for "set of beliefs and practices," yet I think many sources show "religion" as the main descriptive term in reference to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As Savant mentions below the notion that Judaism is not only a religion is not contradicted by mentioning the fact that it is a religion. As Bus stop questions just above ... where are these sources?  Malik forgive me for being blunt here but the more I'm forced to dig for phantom sources the less I'm willing to accept these dismissals as good faith assertions.  If you know they are there can you please bring them forth into the light of this current discussion?  I would be very grateful.  However, please note that I'm not entirely sure why "a view shared by highly-regarded experts from all Jewish religious movements" is a view that we're relying on primarily to write an encyclopedia article.  Forgive me, but "religion" is not a term of self-identification, it is a term of academic classification.  It is by its very nature the purview of the academic other who gazes upon religious institutions, religious communities, religious individuals, religious practices, etc. etc. and compares them to others.  I'm not disqualifying Jewish thought about the term religion, or the comparison between the Jewish tradition and those of other supposed "religions", but it is not common practice to rely on such internal discourses when writing a reference work.Griswaldo (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For instance Humanistic Jews might follow some religious laws (or other practices) as part of a "cultural tradition" and might therefore consider themselves Jewish, or might affiliate with "Judaism" but might be directly opposed to notion that this tradition that they partake in is "religious". A scholar however, has no problem saying that the Humanistic Jew has chosen to abide by traditional religious laws or is engaging in religious practices, even if this same person is not a theist.  This relates to a repeated confusion I found in the archives and I mentioned below.  Religion is not simply about belief in God, or about belief in something.  Religion is a way of life ... it is practice.Griswaldo (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's been watching this conversation without being privy to the prior one beyond a much less thorough archive review than Griswaldo seems to have made, but with a mixture of good-natured amusement and puzzlement, I don't understand why the acknowledgment that Judaism isn't just a religion means that it's wrong to describe it as a religion where and as Griswaldo did. The hatnote I would have thought resolved this matter: Jewish ethnicity, history, and culture are dealt with in other articles; this article called "Judaism" is about the Jewish religion. We can't have it both ways. If it's inappropriate for the article entitled "Judaism" to treat Judaism as a religion, then the hatnote has to be changed and content from the other three articles has to be integrated in, with a new article on "Jewish religion" or some such created. If, on the other hand, this is an article about Judaism qua religion, then the pussyfooting seems silly to me. Savant1984 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Savant this is extremely well put and directly to the point. It is very odd indeed to have a hatnote proclaim that this article is about a religion (as opposed to all the other things one might mean by "Judaism", "Jewish", "Jew", etc.) and then have all kinds of fuss about simply mentioning it right there in the introduction.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 16 - Still no sources
I've looked through archive 16 now, which does contain extensive "discussion" about the topic I raised. However, this discussion is not informed at all by how the matter is treated in reliable sources. Those who have asked for sources have not recieved any it appears. Instead they have been answered repeatedly with arguments novel to the editors making them. They also appear to have been bullied: The verifiable arguments have been made over and over, but it appears others have simply outlasted these arguments without, once again, complying with requests of showing sources that refrain from calling Judaism a religion. See this discussion:
 * How about this as a compromose: Navnløs, edit articles on topics you know about. Slrubenstein | Talk11:15, 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 … Debresser (talk) 11:26, 20 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)

So what did I learn from Archive 16? Very little of use to justify the current situation. I did learn that there are some very opinionated people here who have some very specific opinions about this subject matter but seriously, where is this opinion reflected in reliable sources ... especially mainstream reliable reference sources like the one we are trying to write? I'll keep going back. Archive 15 is next.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15
Archive 15 is just more of the same. Sane suggestions about simply going to the most reliable mainstream sources fall on def ears: No one responded to the above, and clearly no one took the suggestion and ran with it. Otherwise Archive 16 would have looked pretty different. Other things I saw in this archive included a rather strange argument about Napoleon, as if the academic classification of Judaism as a religion has anything to do with French politics: Other arguments included ones that misunderstand what religion is in the first place. See this exchange:
 * Outside view: We had a very similar and lengthy discussion for Hinduism, which you can read here. Eventually we resolved the issue by surveying the terminology used by other tertiary sources in their lede sentences and decided to use "religious tradition" in the first sentence, with a footnote mentioning the other common variants. I am not suggesting that Judaism adopt the same words; but a similar process to resolve the debate could be useful. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slrubenstein. The idea that Judaism is merely a religion was a Napoleonic innovation (one of the results of theGrand Sanhedrin). As Slrubenstein's sources indicate, rabbis from both the traditional (Soloveitchik) and progressive movements (Kaplan) view Judaism as more than a religion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the end, this is about what reliable sources say. Have you got any sources to support the edit that Judaism is solely a religion, that it doesn't encompass a set of practices? For more than 2000 years, and still today according to some rabbis, Judaism has been about acts, not beliefs. (See Jewish principles of faith: "Judaism stresses performance of deeds or commandments rather than adherence to a belief system.") — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only time I've ever had occasion to disagre with you Malik. But for what it is worth, in the sociology of religion, the word 'religion' refers intrinsically to both 'beliefs and practices'. … Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just in the sociology of religion that this applies but in the study of religion across the board. Religion includes beliefs and practices and these beliefs and practices also cross over into other social domains like those regulating ethics, law. Basic, mainstream sources and our other entries agree with this clearly. I remain entirely confused. Do I have to keep digging? Where are the sources that give us reason to pause and say ... let's not identify Judaism as a religion?Griswaldo (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources support the word "religion" as the word that describes the sort of entity that "Judaism" is. On the other hand reliable sources have not been found that support the series of terms "set of beliefs and practices" as descriptive of the identity of "Judaism." Therefore I think we are straying beyond what sources support in the present wording. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "religion" is prominently in the second paragraph of the introduction, but I agree that it should be in the first paragraph as well, because "set of beliefs and practices" sounds like walking around trying to say "religion" without actually saying it, which is bad practise. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes good point. As Bus stop points out I think the key here is how do reliable sources most often classify or describe Judaism? Bus stop's point is that it isn't as "a set of beliefs and practices" but as a "religion".  I agree on this and its odd to, as Savant suggested above, pussyfoot around this.Griswaldo (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment?
Collect suggested to me that we can get greater community input through a request for comment. I am hoping this can be resolved without that but do others think this might be a god step? One of the things I noticed in the archives was that the conversation about this has been pretty insular. If anything there were more people against the current wording but they weren't persistent after coming here and quickly left after not being able to get through to some of the regulars. More eyes on this might be helpful no matter what the outcome is.Griswaldo (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe an RfC would be appropriate, or posting a message at WT:JUDAISM asking for other editors' opinions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking much more broadly than that. At least also engaging the entire religion wikiproject, possible others that deal with culture and history more generally as well.  Part of the problem in my view has been a much too insular conversation.  My apologies if that offends anyone but that seems to happen all around the encyclopedia since certain editors are simply interested in certain things.Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the introduction
Note: This discussion was moved here from User talk:Griswaldo. Please continue the discussion here.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You couldn't find the sources? I hope this helps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 15 cites Mordecai Kaplan 1934, Joseph B. Soloveitchik 1983 [1944], and Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999.
 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 15 has these links:  . It also cites Gilbert Rosenthal 1974.
 * Talk:Judaism/Archive 16 cites Encyclopaedia Judaica.
 * Yes I was very serious, and I generally hope people treat me with the same amount of courtesy that I try to treat them. So what you're saying is that these three sources support the following statement?
 * Judaism is a way of life, not just a religion ("a set of beliefs", according to Wikipedia). That's not just my opinion, it's a view shared by highly-regarded experts from all Jewish religious movements (and non-religious movements, such as Humanistic Judaism) ... Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The first citation is for a book written more than 70 years ago. It makes the following claim: "Judaism as otherness is thus something far more comprehensive than Jewish religion. It contains the nexus of a history, literature, language, social organization, folk sanctions, standards of conduct, social and spiritual ideals, esthetic values, which in their totality form a civilization."  First of all this statement is polemical and not academic.  This is a self-identification' with "civilization" as opposed to "religion" with the expressed aim to foster a sense of civilizational identify amongst Jews.  But even if we granted the source status as detached "scholarship" it is certainly not relevant by todays standards because none of the qualities Kaplan identifies as markers of "otherness" fall outside of what a religion may contain.
 * 2) The second series of citations are not to reliable sources but to websites. I'm not sure how those can be used to make a claim about Judaism without doing original research.
 * 3) The third citation claims that Judaism is three seemingly separate things: "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews." Once again this is an odd weeding out of elements that are all contained within religion.
 * As you can see I have issues with all of these citations, but those individual issues pale in comparison to the one Bus stop brought up so clearly on the talk page. None of these sources, and no other sources presented on the talk pages, can source the statement that Judaism is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh, and explored in later texts such as the Talmud. It could be argued that these sources provide evidence of the minority insistence that Judaism should always be described as something more than religion.  We can get to that argument in due time but we first have to deal with the fact that no sources whatsoever support the current lead.  95% + of quality reference works and introductory texts on Judaism could be used to source the version of the lead I put in place and that you reverted.  Where does that leave us?Griswaldo (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I put a on the introductory sentence or is that also a violation of WP:POINT?Griswaldo (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I don't believe this was a violation of WP:POINT. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems your mind is already made up, so why did you ask about sources?
 * I don't see how you can reduce a clear statement—not a claim, a statement by the scholars who wrote Encyclopaedia Judaica—that "Judaism is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews" to "an odd weeding out of elements that are all contained within religion". Evidently the academics who wrote the encyclopedia thought there was a reason to identify three aspects of Judaism, but you know better than they do, based on what... Wikipedia's article on Christianity? Bus stop's say-so?
 * I'm so glad you "like fun". I like fun too, but I try to approach Wikipedia pages as serious encyclopedia articles, not WP:POINTy games. Let me know when you're ready to do the same. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the second time you you have accused me of violating WP:POINT and I'm not particularly flattered by this and consider it entirely uncalled for. Do you honestly think I was just trying to "have fun"?  Did my comments preceding (and following) that one light hearted reply to Bus stop sound like "fun"?  Please explain to me how an attempt to bring this entry in line with mainstream scholarship is even remotely pointy?  I asked for sources Malik in order to actually engage you in conversation about this after your fly by revert, and because your one justification for this revert appeared to be tied to those sources .  Actually engaging and analyzing those sources after being presented them does not amount to having one's mind made up already.  Did I believe prior to those sources being presented that there were no sources supporting the current first sentence?  Yes and I have made no bones about that.  Did the story change after you presented them?  No because they don't address the sentence in the introduction at all.  I think I detailed in the discussion exactly what I feel those sources provide evidence for.  There are academics who do a heck of a lot of things by the way, from the completely mainstream to the utterly fringe.  No one quote of any kind is ever surprising.  I also made it clear that my opinion is not simply from my own say so.  Almost all mainstream sources call Judaism a religion, even if, as many do, they go onto nuance the discussion of Judaism by pointing out the complexities of Jewish identity and historical nationhood.  The particular quote from Encyclopedia Judaica falls to an extreme in this type of presentation (and please don't forget that it still does not source the sentence in the current introduction).  Do you want some other examples?  If you do I will be glad to dig them up.  I speak from experience at the moment, and should I be wrong when I consult the sources I'll be more than happy to admit being wrong and to deal with what the sources really say.  Are you ready to deal with what the sources say?Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quote: Judaism is a way of life, not just a religion ("a set of beliefs") But every religion is a way of life, there's nothing distinctively Jewish about this. Christianity as a way of life includes various important festivals (Easter, Christmas) that aren't sanctioned in the Christian scriptures (tell me where in the NT I can find a direction to celebrate either of these), certain assumptions about sexuality (there's no reason except religion for the modern Western prohibition of polygamy), and so on. Buddhism in Southeast Asia has practices for the channeling of fortune, conceived as a force rather than an abstraction, which are not found in Christianity because Christianity doesn't think of "luck" in the same way; and so on. In other words, the distinction between religion-as-belief) and religion as way of life is a false one.PiCo (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All believers particularly enthusiasts tend to say that their belief is not just a religion but a way of life, like say Islamists. But that does not mean that their beliefs eg Islam or Judaism cannot be classed and described as a religion. Hugo999 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)