Talk:Judaism/Archive 19

Deletion of Jewish category
The consideration of the deletion of this category may be of interest to some of you.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as an FYI: This really isn't the appropriate forum for this sort of notice. The CfD is already listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, and any additional discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the term "religion" appear descriptively in the first sentence?
Note: ''This Rfc is a continuation of a discussion which started above. The reader is recommended to read those as well.''

Unlike the entries for other world religions the Judaism entry does not describe its subject matter as a religion in the first sentence, but instead as “beliefs and practices …”. There is a hatnote on the entry that proclaims its subject to be the “Jewish religion” and further down in the lead we learn that it is in fact a “monotheistic religion”. When I attempted to add the latter phrase to the first sentence I was quickly reverted and I have been told that this is a contentious change. I am hoping to get community input on this. Please see the discussion that has already started above starting with Talk:Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Religion is defined as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion" (bold italic mine, regular italics original to the source).  This is one of those cases in which a religion likes to define itself in certain terms.  Thus Christians often choose the term "faith" instead of "religion" even though "beliefs" is part of the definition for "religion" and even though Christianity has between 2-7 sacraments which they "practice".


 * In both cases, I'd suggest we allow each religion to define itself in its own unique language -- as long as it is acceptable normative English. A "set of beliefs and practices" is a perfectly acceptable phrase to use instead of "religion" for the simple reason that it is the definition of "religion."  In other words -- they (i.e. each religion) like the definition better than the term.  Okay, let them (i.e. each religion) have it.EGMichaels (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there even one source saying that Judaism is a "set of beliefs and practices"? Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. I'm not arguing against the term "religion" or even for "a set of beliefs and practices."  I'm just saying that if someone is arguing for a synonym, why not let him have it?  It's a synonym.  Do I call a woman "miss" or "ma'am"?  Heck, whatever she wants.EGMichaels (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are these "they" who like the definition better than the term? Are we to assume that a handful of editors on Wikipedia speak for a majority of people who self-identify as Jews? And even if they did I'm having a very hard time understanding what policies or guidelines tell us to put aside reliable mainstream sources when we make these types of decisions.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- I meant "they" as any religion which wants to nuance the term. As long as it is intelligible and reflects reality it shouldn't be a problem to describe each religion in its native color.  Its like that old joke, "That's no lady; that's my wife." EGMichaels (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, per your examples, the entry on Christianity has not substituted "faith" for "religion". Some people consider Buddhism a philosophy, many a "way of life", but once again "religion" is right there.  Why?  Because that's how we most commonly classify these traditions.  And we know that because its in the sources.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the time synonymous expressions are perfectly acceptable as long as they are intelligible and accurate. Since "a religion" is "a set of beliefs and practices" this is a non-issue.EGMichaels (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a violation of WP:synthesis. Are you not taking two sources and repackaging that combined information into a new entity? Bus stop (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A synthesis is taking two things and making them into something else. This is just a synonymous phrase.  It's a non-issue.EGMichaels (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not if we're trying to educate people it's not a non-issue. I'm going to stop commenting though becaue I want others to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It's not really my issue anyway.  I tried for "religion" a year or two ago and got the same problem.  I just shrugged my shoulders and dropped it.  In any case, I'll be mostly offline for the next ten days.  Have a great week.EGMichaels (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I find the argument "we're trying to educate people" is rarely a very persuasive one, and usually raises red flags, since it is precisely the same argument that's been historically abused by those who wanted to describe Judaism is far less flattering terms like "cult" and worse - by everyone from Vespasian to Goebbels, to the wikipedia editor only yesterday whom we actually saw insisting on another page that Judaism be declared a "fringe" belief. Everyone may want to "educate people" according to their own "teaching".  "Educating people" may be a by-product of what wikipedia does, but web 2.0 allows it to happen in a more user-friendly and less-didactic way than ever before.  In the old days everybody hated the books that addressed you like a kindergartner. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please strike or alter your comparison between my innocent use of a common English verb "to educate" with Joseph Goebbels the architect of Nazi propaganda. I simply mean that people come to reference works to "learn" something they don't already know. Hence it is our job to educate them.  We may disagree on how best to do so but that does not make it OK for you to compare me to a Nazi. I also surely hope you are not claiming that I listed "Judaism as a fringe belief" because nothing could be further from the truth.Griswaldo (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris, I struck the words that offended you, in the interests of getting along, but please note that I was not insinuating any other comparison with you, just noting the argument about "education" is not stand-alone, as a logical exersize. The editor who as of yesterday wants Judaism listed as a "fringe belief" was not you, either, I was referring to this which is from a known serial problem editor in this regard. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds familiar. Without even looking, I'd guess... Big "C" followed by four three little letters...EGMichaels (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Followed by three little letters. Glad we agree on something :).Griswaldo (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ROFL! I can't even count this morning!  REALLY time for a Wikibreak -- cheers everyone.EGMichaels (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He wasn't calling you a Nazi. He was merely going through the entire history of Jews being told by others what they are.  I'd like to add that this is a bad habit on Wikipedia.  Editors keep thinking that we are precisely saying what things are.  We aren't.  We are merely saying what others say something is or is not.  Regardless, Judaism does have a weird spin all its own (as does each religion).  Allowing synonymous phrasing is a non-issue.  I don't know why you're trying to make it one.  And precisely what are you trying to educate people about?  It's called a religion above the first sentence and below the first sentence.  A religion is a set of beliefs and practices.  So?  None of these spoil whatever education you are after.EGMichaels (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM he explicitly compared my use of "educate" here to a historical record of uses by those who have have persecuted Judaism and then used a Nazi as an example. I did not say that he "called me a Nazi", I said he compared my invocation of a concept (education) to the the use of that concept by a Nazi. Do you actually find this appropriate?  The problem of learning is in the inconsistent use of "religion" across the encyclopedia.  A thorough reader of this entry here will not have a problem, clearly.  But someone who peruses the first few sentences will.  Multiple types of readers may also be dissuaded from linking through to "religion" because of this as well.  One of our greatest resources here is inter-Wiki linking and the ability to contextualize and expand upon words like religion in ways that stating "beliefs and practices" without linking cannot even come close to doing.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief. He compared the use of the term to Romans and everyone else under the moon.  Yes, he should retract it because you took it offensively, but I don't think he meant it offensively.  In any case, we aren't here to educate.  Wikipedia isn't a source.  It's just a big bibliography of sources.  Those sources may educate, but all we can do is point to them.EGMichaels (talk) 12:13, 7 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) 06:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal Swap places: put "religion" into the first paragraph, and "set of beliefs and practices" into the second, where it fits very well into the context. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Prior discussions focussed on the fact that the "set of beliefs and practices" in Judaism involve more than simple religion.  They, in fact, encompass such things as "nationhood" and the like not found in other religions.  As for Christianity being a single religion or faith, the fact is that that topic is complex, with the whole issue of sacraments being totally different from group to group.  Since it is a totally different topic, the solution there is not necessarily acpplicable here.  One may note that the prior lede at one point included "traditions" which makes the use of "religion" as the single word become a tad more problematic.  The religious beliefs presumably fall under "religion" but do the nationhood beliefs fall under "religion"?  That is the real problem, I fear. Collect (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do the nationhood beliefs fall under "religion"?' Absolutely, but it's not up to me or you or other editors to decide that.  It's up to reliable sources.  All I'm really asking is for some reliable sources that support using the current phrasing as opposed to religion.  I just want to be clear on how simple this is.  I have started providing sources that do use "religion", can others be brought forth?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See for instance The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics already quoted above:
 * "The religion of the Jews, characterized by: (1) its monotheism; (2) its belief in a special covenant with God making it his ‘chosen people’; (3) ethnic and territorial identity (the ‘promised land’); (4) specific laws and practices; and (5) Messianism.
 * It is standard to include these factors in discussions of Judaism that still treat it predominantly as a "religion". I'm not sure that I'd follow the particular language of this source, but I think the point should be clear.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Book title which does not say "religion" but has "Beliefs, Practices, Customs and Traditions" in title,  also uses the term.  Again, I care not what words are used, as long as they encompass the entirety of what is in the article in the lede (there is no need to use refs in the lede if the refs are already in the article, by the way).    The purpose of the lede is to accurately sum up the article, and it should do so as clearly as possible. Is there anything in the article which does not primarily refer to "religion"? If so, then the broader terms ought to be used. If everything in the article is specific to "religion" then "religion" is the word which ought to be used.  Collect (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * References are not needed in the lead but verification is needed when there is dispute. I'm asking for verification.  I'm not sure if this is what you meant with the two references above but the first one starts, Unlike many other religious traditions and I'm unsure about the second because I can't see also pages.  The second source does definitely make the claim that Judaism is "more than religion".  This book is of course not written by a university professor or but a Rabbi.  There is nothing wrong with that but this is similar to books written by any religious leader who is part of a religion or an ambiguously religious group as opposed to a scholar studying the religion.  Does the entry cover only religion?  As far as I can see, yes it only covers religion.Griswaldo (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, there is nothing to dispute. Yes, an EDITOR is saying "it's not a religion; it's a set of beliefs and practices" but the ARTICLE isn't.  I'd argue to the moon to keep the lede from saying "it's not a religion."  But using a synonym for "religion" in the first sentence does no harm and adds a touch of native color.


 * And that's legitimate. Judaism has some weird aspects that has people arguing over who's a Jew.  A "Buddhist Jew" is still a Jew, although a Muslim Britain is not still an Anglican.  Judaism, which defines things like "who is a Jew" in ways that go beyond mere "religion" has a right to add some color to the bland word "religion."  Yes, it is a religion.  And yes, it is a set of beliefs and practices.  And by the way, yes, a religion is a set of beliefs and practices.  A=B=C=B=A -- I am a "man" and a "male" and "masculine."  Use whatever word you wish -- just don't call me "Sue."EGMichaels (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, would you be willing to link "beliefs and practices" in this manner? I'm not saying that this is the solution but I'm curious because a good half of the problem for me is the lack of linking in the first sentence.  If it's a synonym then the linking would be appropriate right?Griswaldo (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to state for the record that the current wording of the first sentence of Religion is also problematic. I understand that it is sourced to an online dictionary, but the emphasis on "belief" is not in line with modern scholarship on religion ... and certainly not social scientific scholarship on religion.Griswaldo (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris -- I'm not the right person to ask here. I'd be willing to call it a religion, Wikilink to religion, or whatever anyone wants.  As I said, this is a non-issue.  I'm merely saying it doesn't matter either way.  If someone really wants "beliefs and practices", why argue with him?EGMichaels (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I'm going to sign off of this for a while like I promised.  I want others to join the discussion.  My perspective is clear at this point I think.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) The current article does, indeed, make reference to a non-religion Judaism In contrast to this point of view, practices such as Humanistic Judaism reject the religious aspects of Judaism, while retaining certain cultural traditions. As well as the extensive sections on the monarchy etc. Unless, of course, one regards the section on the monarchy as being about the religion and not about the nation. Collect (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But is there a source for Humanistic Judaism being referred to as a "non-religion"? Bus stop (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm outta here too -- should be (mostly) offline for the next ten days...EGMichaels (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From article (with apparent cite as "(Society)" Although followers of Humanistic Judaism value their Jewish identity and aspects of their culture, and they celebrate Jewish holidays and life events, there is no indication that followers embrace any religious aspect of Judaism. (Society) which rather implies that the group does not embrace any religious aspect of Judaism.  I doubt the wording could be more clear . Collect (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Collect — you are taking liberties with what the source says. That source most definitely does not say equate "Humanistic Judaism" with the term "non-religion," and I see no reason why one could not adhere to the words used in the source that you brought to our attention. The key words would be "religious aspect." Not following any "religious aspect" would not necessarily equate with it (Humanistic Judaism) being called a "non-religion." The two locutions convey slightly different shades of meaning, especially in the context of this discussion (but of course if used in an article) as to whether Judaism (in general) should be primarily referred to as a religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus stop it's not a "source" external to Wikipedia. Collect is directly quoting unsourced prose from our own entry on Humanistic Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow -- glad I peeked one more time. Thanks for that quote.  You're right, according to that source Judaism can't be a religion because it contains religious aspects.  Religion is a subset of a larger set.  Thanks for that, and you're right -- it can't be any more clear.  Okay, I now go from neutral to full support of "a set of beliefs and practices."EGMichaels (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Really EGM? I'm also glad I caught this before dissapearing.  Collect, Bus stop asked for a reliable source and not an unsourced statement from another Wikipedia article which notably has so little sourcing that a big fat banner sits at its beginning stating so.  What exactly is "(Society)"?  It goes without question that most Humanistic Jews would themselves disassociate from anything one might refer to as "religious".  All (secular) humanists dissociate from religion.  The question we need to ask ourselves is not what they claim but what reliable secondary and tertiary sources have to say about the matter.  The question Bus stop posed goes unanswered, and the general aversion here to rely on sources apparently continues.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I confess that this conversation seems bizarre to me. It seems we have widespread agreement that "religion"="set of beliefs and practices", as evidenced by the uncontroversial use of the word religion in the hatnote and the next paragraph as indicating the topic of this article as opposed to anything else. This makes sense; the other three things one might call "Judaism" referred to in the hatnote -- ethnicity, history, and culture -- can hardly be called a "set of beliefs and practices." Yet we have widespread objection to replacing the phrase "set of beliefs and practices" with "religion" because Judaism is not just a religion/set of beliefs and practices. As I noted above, we can't have it both ways, guys. If the article "Judaism" should be about aspects of being Jewish beyond religion/beliefs & practices, then we have to change the article (and, most prominently, the hatnote). If it's okay for the article to be about Judaism qua religion, then we can and should call it a religion in that first paragraph. If, finally, "religion" is not the same as "a set of beliefs and practices", then we need to make the hatnote and next paragraph the same as the one under dispute, one way or the other. The question of whether Judaism is just a religion seems to me to be utterly beside the point; it's entirely a matter of what this article ought to be about, and once that's clear (as it seems to have been for years that it be about the religion), I don't understand this argument. (I also second Debresser's idea for swapping the phrasing between the two paragraphs.) Savant1984 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion as well.Griswaldo (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) The material is basically from American Himanist Association, hence is fully sourceable. Second, the point about the article having an extensive discussion about the monarchy also trumps the "Judaism is only a religion" implication of the proposed change. Collect (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your source is a primary source then. We don't use primary sources for these types of claims, especially when they are being used to contradict mainstream tertiary sources like encyclopedias and other reference works.  When you mention monarchy do you mean the ancient Kings which we know about through the Hebrew Bible?  You think it's stories aren't considered religious? The Hebrew Bible is scripture in a general sense and canon in a Jewish religious sense.  Or were you refering to some other "monarchy"?Griswaldo (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I have just returned from a conference where an India scholar pointed out that while the belifs and practices that people identify with Hinduism existed prior to British colonialism, the idea of an "-ism" was a product of British collaboration with Brahmin allies. He further noted that one could make a similar argument about Judaism, that it describes something that existed prior to the 19th century, but is not properly called a "religion" since the concept of "religion" is really a modern invention and does not applie to so much of Judaism. My point is that Wikipedia should not rely on dictionary defintions which is such a poor excuse for research I would just fail a student if theat were her basis for research, and if it is anyone's, here, they do not have any right editing an encyclopedia.

I agree with much of what Collect has said. Many times in the past we have provided many citations from reliable sources describing Judaism as many other things besides "religion."

The bottom line: agree with me or not,, that judaism is a religion is a point of view. I do not object to our presenting it in the article, but as an point of view and not as a fact. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes "religion" is a POV, but so is any word that is descriptive of human institutions and practices. If you want to a good read about the genealogy of this particular POV have a crack at Tomoko Masuzawa's The Invention of World Religions.  Unfortunately it also happens to be the POV expressed by tertiary sources like dictionaries, encyclopedias and introductory religion texts pretty much in toto (see above for a sampling of reference works published by Oxford University Press and covering a variety of fields).  It doesn't get much more mainstream than Oxford.  Secondary sources aren't far behind either.  Now don't get me wrong, in application these sources often nuance the discussion as much as possible, because let's face it no substantive or functional definition of religion is ever going to be perfect (and not just for Hinduism and Judaism, but for all the lovely -isms, and even that pesky -anity and its cousin -lam).  They all have features that problematize classification, and there is room in all of our articles about them to go on and flesh that out.  But in terms of simply stating that Judaism is a "monotheistic religion" in the opening of the article where does that leave us?  As far as I know we are meant to abide by WP:V and WP:RS as opposed to our own opinions and our own original research however strongly we may feel about this.  If we disagree with mainstream POVs then we voice our disagreement but policies tell us that we have to eat our pride and get on with it.Griswaldo (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Policies do? Have you read WP:NPOV lately? It has never said it's neutral to push or endorse one supposedly 'mainstream view' at the expense of other views; quite to the contrary... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Til thank you very much for bringing this policy to my attention. I reread WP:NPOV thoroughly.  No one is suggesting that one POV should be excluded.  Please help me understand how to follow the policy you mention correctly.  Please see the detailed presentation below.Griswaldo (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion is not a POV except for maybe new religious groups. Judaism is defined as a "religion" in most, if not all, common references. Nor is it necessary to choose one definition to the exclusion of another, as if there were some rule about only getting one choice. So the this entire issue is ridiculous on its face. In fact, I can't believe anyone has turned it into an argument. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Religion" is a POV, and if you donot know that, I am sorry my friend but you are just ignorant of much research in the study of religions and in Jewish Studies. As to the "weight" issues, raised here and below, these are valid, but the solution starts with identifying different stakeholders.  The question is not whether the view that Judaism is a religion (or a nation or a culture) is majority or minority.  We have to first identify different stakeholders, i.e. academic scholars, Jewish leaders, popular opinion, etc.  Within each of these groups there may be many views, different majority and minority views.  What is a fringe view for one group could be a mainstream view for another group.  A good introduction would identify the different groups, and then the majority or mainstream view for each group.  If you want to see a great example of this, look at the way different views identified with different groups are presented in the lead to the Jesus article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I do not agree with your selective use of the verb "to be". Within the logical scope of this argument the statement that "religion is a POV" is itself just as much of a POV as the statement that "Judaism is a religion".  The reason I'm trying to point us back to the sources, and to the manner in which policy asks us to use these sources, is in part to avoid such pitfalls.   That said I am having a hard time seeing your suggested manner of source use and weight determination reflected in any policies or guidelines.  Please help me here by providing the policy justification for this statement: "A good introduction would identify the different groups, and then the majority or mainstream view for each group."  Relying on an example like Jesus does not help all the much for two important reasons -- 1) The article might itself not be in line with policy for all I know (I'm not saying that is the case but I have no reason to assume one way or the other) and 2) it is not of the same kind as this entry.   But all of that is besides the point anyway.  The manner in which the figure of Jesus is treated in the entry is most probably reflected in basic reference works and introductory texts on the subject matter.  The justification for presenting it in this way most probably goes back to sources, which (see the policy quotes below) is in line with WP:NPOV.  I'd like to see how you actually apply the text from the policy to justify your approach to Judaism.  The way I read the policy is clear.  The mainstream, majority POV, as reflected by reference texts, is to state that Judiasm is a religion, and then to nuance the discussion from there.  The policy says that we give this POV much more weight.  The POV you are championing is at most a significant minority POV.  It is not to be given as much weight.  Further, putting the POVs side by side as if they are of equal weight is a direct violation of the policy.  Even further beyond that, according to the policy regarding religions specifically, given the emic nature of the minority POV, it is explicitly advisable to use specialist language, like like the term "religion".  My argument is policy and source evidence based.  Please respond in kind as that would be the most productive way forward.  Thank you.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream point of view among scholars is not reflected in introductory textbooks. What you have to do is read the articles of major scholars that are published in peer-reviewed journals. UC Berkeley, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, and many other major US universities have produced significant work in Jewish studies and of course Hebrew University and Tel Aviv. These scholars also publish books through major university presses that are reliable sources. Read their work and you will see what the mainstream view among scholars is. Shaye Cohen and Daniel Boyarin are very well-established and respected scholars who publish in this field. On the other hand, if you read books and articles published by scholars at the major seminaries - Yeshiva University, Jewish Theological Seminary, Hebrew Union College - you might find different views among different movements of Judaism. Professors at those seminaris often have their own presses, or publish through Berman House or Ktav. So this is where I would go to find out the various points of view. And this is following our policy. Your claim that our policy says to give more weight to other tertiary sources just sounds lazy, and is not our policy. A good encyclopedia expresses views from significant sources; on an object of scholarly research, like Judaism, this means scholarshipproduced by scholars of Jewish studies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein you are quite mistaken on what is considered mainstream in religious studies or any other discipline. The academic debate of the day, which might be evidenced in the most recent editions of peer reviewed journals does not constitute the "mainstream" in religious studies, in the social sciences or in any other discipline.  When reference works catch up and latch on, only then is something institutionalized into the "mainstream".  Who do you think uses introductory texts?  Who do you think author reference works?  Scholars do, and these scholars would be destroying their reputations if they didn't peddle the "mainstream", as would publishers like Oxford University Press for that matter.  You may disagree but apparently the WP:NPOV guideline does not.  And I quote once again:
 * 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.
 * Can you please 1) make an argument that is based in the language of policy and 2) provide source evidence of your claims relating to the prevalence of a view in the academic literature. Simply naming publishers doesn't support your argument. In the end I'm quite sure we can argue till the cows come home about what constitutes the mainstream but that is completely antithetical to solving this problem and will end up a serious waste of time. What we need to do instead of supplying our own claims about the world out there is to argue within the policies and guidelines provided for us here, at Wikipedia. Only evidence is needed from the outside, like source evidence.Griswaldo (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is an RfC. I gave my comment, and answered the question. We discussed this a long time ago and reached a consensus based on sources. Why not go back through the archives to see the discussions you missed? Or if you want to work on the article why not do the real research one has to do to write an encyclopedia article which yes, does indeed mean reading scholarly articles and books. I didn't come here to do your work. And if you do not want to do work related to this article, go somewhere else. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously asking why you need to back your argument with policy and sourcing? You have clearly not answered my questions in a manner required by our policies or else I wouldn't be repeating them over and over and over.  You didn't "come here to do [my] work"?  How insulting.  If you had read the current talk page you would know that I have looked through the archives -- see Talk:Judaism and its subsections Talk:Judaism and Talk:Judaism.  Additionally I started discussion with Malik about the so called "sources" that are in the archives -- see Talk:Judaism.  What you need to do is your own work Slrubenstein.  I'm suggesting that you are in violation of the WP:NPOV policy regarding weight and you haven't proved otherwise, indeed you're claiming you don't have to.  Are you exempt from policy?  Also, there is no consensus in the archives.  What I see is lots of disagreement but steady persistence on one side of the discussion driving off those who disagree.  Are you ready to discuss policy and sourcing Slrubenstein?  If you say no once again the record will show it clearly.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided my sources already. I am not going to waste time doing it again when you can find them in the archive. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Noted. You refuse to back your claims with policy and sourcing.  I've made every possible good faith effort to show you that I've already been through the archives and have already discussed the sources found in there with others ... on this very talk page, easily seen as linked in my last reply.  Your refusal is clear at this point.  Please do not complain when your argument is disregarded due to its lack of substantiation.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here for the RfC. We should use the term "religion" in the first sentence. Leadwind (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree -- it is not solely a religion (e.g., it is also a nation, etc.), but that is part of what it is notable for. Should be reflected in the first sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read all the lengthy discusions above, so please excuse me if this has been said before. Collins, Nirvana, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 10:

"Such a distinction between a loose and general, but not useless, sense of a word and its lack of utility in contexts requiring more historical and interpretive accuracy is even more important in the case of the word 'religion'. Debates about the definition of the word, and whether it is a universal phenomenon in human life or not, have been and will no doubt remain endless. For myself, a loose, general conversational sense is acceptable: if someone were to ask me what is the majority religion in, say, Thailand or Burma, expecting a short, factual answer, it would seem best – and correct – simply to reply 'Buddhism' or perhaps 'Therav&#257;da Buddhism', rather than churlishly to launch into a disquisition about the definition of the word, and the difficulty of applying it in many Buddhist (and other) contexts. In that general sense ... But ... it is a very much more difficult issue whether the kind(s) of Buddhist thought and practice discussed here [Theravada] are usefully so termed, and whether such a debate will achieve anything."

Although he's talking specifically about Buddhism, much of what he says is general. There's no consensus on the definition of religion, & some scholars maintain there's no such thing. In the light of this, an uncontextualized statement that something is (not) a religion might be considered weasel words. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a very odd conclusion to draw from that quote -- that is if I understand you. You think its better to "churlishly [...] launch into a disquisition about the definition of the word" than to simply use it?  When you say "some scholars maintain there's no such thing", you fail to mention that this is under 1% of scholars doing research on these traditions.  A handful of their ruminations about the term's lack of usefulness have been prominently debated but lets not kid ourselves about what the status quo here is.  Also consider that the difficulty in applying the term religion to traditions like Buddhism comes mainly from how closely religion's supposed qualities conform to Judeo-Christian traditions.  After Christianity, Judaism is the religion par excellence if we look at the genealogy of the term.  Let's not kid ourselves about something else here either.  The opposition to using "religion" is not based on scholarly arguments over the usefulness of this term but are rooted squarely in the politics of identity.  It should be said rather plainly that the particular identity struggle going on here is a modern invention as well.  It would have made no sense to separate Jewish religion from Jewish [whatever] until the last two hundred years, maybe even less.  It certainly did not become an issue until well into the 20th century.  The question here is who will decide on the terms we use?  Scholars or people who are struggling with their own identity vis-a-vis semantics?  I vote for the former.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you've understood what I was saying. Collins seems to me to be saying that the statement "X is a religion" has 2 different meanings. That raises the question of whether such statements in WP need clarification.


 * You may well be right about 1%. I wouldn't know. And WP has carefully avoided setting a numerical threshold for "significant" views. Anyway, for consideration by those involved here, I'll give some citations from Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * page viii:


 * "... the world's religions are more than an analytic, erroneous or colonialist category, as some recent authors would have it (Smith 1988; Fitzgerald 1990; Chidester 1996; McCutcheon 1997; King 1999)."


 * Peter jackson (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * refs for the above (page xvii):


 * Chidester, David. 1996. Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
 * Fitzgerald, Timothy. 1990. 'Hinduism and the World Religion Fallacy.' Religion 20: 101-18.
 * King, Richard. 1999. 'Orientalism and the Modern Myth of "Hinduism".' Numen 46: 147-85.
 * McCutcheon, Russell T. 1997.

TBC Peter jackson (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, fire alarm went off & I had to sign off & save. Refs continue:


 * McCutcheon, Russell T. 1997. 1997. Manufacturing Religion: The discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 * Smith, Jonathan Z. 1988. '"Religion" and "Religious Studies": No Difference at All.' Soundings 71: 231-44.


 * Peter jackson (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * page 136:


 * "Peter Beyer (see Greil and Bromley 2003) has suggested that this western folk concept of religion is now becoming understood and accepted globally.


 * It might therefore come as a surprise that social scientists, religious studies scholars, and philosophers have been debating the question of the proper definition of religion for well over a hundred years. It seems safe to assert that no consensus on a definition of religion has been reached and that no consensus is likely to be reached in the foreseeable future. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that the quest for an acceptable definition of religion is a waste of time. Some historians of religion, including Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Talal Asad, Jonathan Z. Smith, Timothy Fitzgerald, and Russell T. McCutcheon have gone so far as to question whether the term "religion" even has an empirical referent that would render it susceptible to being defined and studied. Jonathan Z. Smith (1982, p. xi) expresses this point of view forcefully when he says that "Religion is solely the creation of the scholar's study. It is created for the scholar's analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence apart from the academy.""


 * Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * refs (page 149):


 * Greil, A.L. and Bromley, D.G. 2003. ''Defining Religion: Investigating the Boundaries between Sacred and Secular. Amsterdam: JAI.
 * Smith, J.Z. 1982. ''Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


 * Peter jackson (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you add Tomoko Masuzawa's The Invention of the World's Religions I think that's a pretty good representation of those who have raised these kinds of issues. But if one measures those references against the literally millions of books and peer reviewed articles that simply use the term "religion" to refer to everything from the Judaism and Christianity to Sumbanese ancestor cults that's pretty minimal. There are also hundreds of thousands of professors who have appointments in "religious studies departments", or in the sociology of religion, or the anthropology of religion, the philosophy of religion, etc.. These are the "scholars of religion" that you refer to and they don't study a phantom phenomenon without a real referent. Sure there is no neat substantive or functional definition that everyone can agree upon but that's no different than other similar terms like "culture". Framing the discussion in terms of such a definition is a red herring. Scholars of religion generally agree to categorize various traditions of practice and belief as "religion" based upon a lose set of criteria. That criteria may be (or certainly may have been) most suitable for Christianity than for some others, but like I said, after that in terms of suitability is Judaism. Also these scholars who raise issues with "religion" are not specifically claiming that "Judaism is not a religion". I think the discussion they are part of is more appropriate for discussion by us at Religion and WikiProject Religion. In the meantime, as long as reliable sources call Judaism a religion so should we. These critiques also represent a very small minority (if not nonexistent) position when it comes to actual academic usage. For instance John Z. Smith clearly has no aversion to the term "religion" despite his controversial remark years ago.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way I don't have that Collins book. Could you provide the entire quote (there are two sets of ellipses at the end what you copied here)?  When he asks at the end about "whether such a debate will achieve anything" it is difficult to understand what he's referring to.  I took this to mean the debate over the category as applicable to Buddhism.  I understand that he's parsing two different contextual arenas in which the term may be more and less useful, but its not really clear where he comes out on this.  Also lets remember that Collins is specifically discussing Buddhism and not Judaism.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said before, you may well be right, but I remind you yet again that Collins seems to be saying that statements of the form "X is a religion" can have 2 different meanings, so you might have to consider which is intended by all those scholars you refer to. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many words, if not all words, "may have two [or more] different meanings". Assuming this is not helpful in and of itself.  How do we use this idea to better write an encyclopedia entry.  That's the question we should be asking.  Personally I don't think its helpful at all.  Reliable sources use "religion" and by that they mean a general category of stuff that other reliable sources also call "religion".  That's good enough for me and its good enough for Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Three times is the charm". Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Peter jackson (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except I hear that loud and clear I just think it is an unproductive line of argument. We can do what Collins does ad finitum but I think that's pointless.  That doesn't mean am not recognizing what he's doing ... quite to the contrary.Griswaldo (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll leave it for those involved in the dispute to consider. (I assume there is a dispute, since there's an RfC.) I'm not taking part in it, just commenting as requested. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assumption about what debate Collins is referring to is correct. I can find you the full passage if you need it, but I omitted material I didn't consider relevant. Peter jackson (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm just curious about that so I'd appreciate seeing the entire quote. But it isn't necessary.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll look it up when I get the chance. Maybe tomorrow. Peter jackson (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, got it in front of me now.


 * "In that general sense the words 'religion' and 'religious' are used, occasionally, in this book. But, for reasons that will be evident to anyone who reads this book, it is a very much more difficult issue whether the kind(s) of Buddhist thought and practice discussed here [Theravada] are usefully so termed, and whether such a debate will achieve anything."


 * Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll also mention while I'm here that Fitzgerald seems to take the position that individual "world religions", presumably including Judaism, don't actually exist, that there are only local religious communities, that their claims to be part of something bigger are part of their own belief sysems, not facts about the real world. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Timothy Fitzgerald's argument is that "the study of religion" is itself bunk and he would advocate getting rid of every "religious studies" department around because of it. As you can imagine this argument is very unpopular among those who professedly study ... "religion".  It is a fringe argument.  There is a good set of reviews of this book in Religious Studies Review that sum up some of the more common objections to his arguments.  If you look at this review pay attention to Benson Saler's critique especially.  Saler, who himself advocates a family resemblance type approach to "religion" as a category, points out that Fitzgerald's arguments don't dismantle those approaches in the least.  The family resemblance approach basically sums up how scholars treat religion in practice, and have done so for eons.Griswaldo (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've come across the family resemblance interpretation before. Seems sensible to me. Buddhologist Jonathan Silk says it applies to religion (he argues on this basis that Buddhism is one) and to Mahayana Buddhism. I haven't seen anyone apply it to Buddhism itself, though that would seem reasonable. Did Ninian Smart use this idea too? Peter jackson (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy (WP:DUE has this criterion for significant minorities:


 * "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"


 * That still leaves (at least) 2 questions unanswered:


 * Is the plural to be taken literally, or is 1 prominent adherent enough?
 * What exactly is prominent? Is it the same as notable? Logically, it would make no sense for people to qualify as prominent by virtue of notoriety for eccentric views.


 * Peter jackson (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fringe theories guideline seems to say something completely different:


 * "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."


 * Peter jackson (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK but that very succinctly describes the position of Fitzgerald's argument within the field so I don't quote get what the point here is. I called it a fringe theory and linked to the policy and you now quoted from it and sure enough the quote is entirely applicable to his argument.  Please help me understand what you're saying here.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is as explained above & below: the definitions of tiny/insignificant minority & fringe theory seem to be entirely different, so it's not at all clear what WP policy in this area is supposed to be. Peter jackson (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Concrete example for consideration. The latest edition of a standard textbook, favourably reviewed in JAAR, calls Buddhism a family of religions. This doesn't seem to be the mainstream view.


 * Does it depart from it "significantly"?
 * Does it have "prominent adherents"?
 * Is a statement in a standard textbook favourably reviewed in what claims to be the leading academic journal in the field capable of counting as a fringe view?
 * Is fringe theory the same as tiny/insignificant minority?
 * Are WP's policies & guidelines in this area coherent?


 * Peter jackson (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again I'll point out that this is Judaism and not Buddhism. If you insist on having a general conversation about the category religion, and especially if Buddhism is going to be your prime example, then this isn't the right place.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to have "a general conversation about the category religion", I was trying to have "a general conversation about" WP policy & guidelines in this area. If you don't want to discuss that, that's fine. You're not under any obligation to respond to anything I've said. Nobody else has bothered at all. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for hatnote
I would like to make what I hope is a non-controversial proposal to edit the hatnote. The hatnote says that people should turn to the article on Jews for historical information. But we have a separate article on Jewish history that has existed in one form or anothe almost as long as the encyclopedia. I propose deleting the word "historical" from the current hatnote, and adding a second sentence, "For information on the historical dimension of Judaism, see Jewish history" I am not marrid to this wording, if people get my basic idea and agree with it but can come up with better wording, by all means, do so! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could explain clearly the difference between the terms "historical dimension of" and "history of". The word "dimension" strikes me as meaningless and implied in the present context. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have written "For the historical aspect of Jewish identity" because that is what the hatnote currently says (what does "aspct" mean? i do not know, I am just trying to be conservative in sticking to the wording we have.)  Like I wrote, above, I am not married to this phrasing. Do you think "For the history of" is better? Fine by me! I asked people to suggest improvements!! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "History of Judaism" is clear and covers the general subject it would seem. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to change the hatnote. The only article which covers both ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects is Jews. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The history of the Jews is not covered in the Jews article. it is covered in the Jewish history article. If we are going to have a hatnote referring people to the Jews article, why not also refer them to the Jewish history article?Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The hatnotes should be entirely deleted from both the Jew and Judaism articles. They are not at all in compliance with the way hatnotes are supposed to be used.


 * The application of the hatnotes is virtually meaningless. The hatnotes direct the reader to the other article for material that is in the article that the reader is already at. That seems not only unproductive but counterproductive.


 * The hatnotes are activist in the sense that they try to promote a view that is not universally held. Jews and Judaism are not considered as distinct as these hatnotes would lead one to believe, at least as concerns the topics covered under each article. The conservative (i.e. Orthodox) end of the spectrum of Jewish observance does not at all make the hard and fast distinctions that the hatnotes imply. The liberal (i.e. nonobservant) end of the spectrum of Jewish observance does, for instance, sometimes see these clear distinctions between, for instance, religious and ethnic Jewish identity. These are topics that can be covered in the body of the article. Hatnotes should not be used in this way.


 * It is impossible to attach a "source" to a hatnote's assertion. Similar material, contained within the body of the article can and should have a source associated with it. The hatnotes don't convey assertions, but rather implications. This is problematic. The article should be making assertions and those assertions should be supported by sources.


 * Related articles should be noted in the "See also" section. (That would include reference to the Jewish history article.) Related articles can also be noted at section breaks in each article where clear cause can be demonstrated for such links.


 * Hatnotes have a correct realm of applicability. But nothing comes remotely close to the way the hatnotes are being misused here. At WP:HATNOTE we find for instance that hatnotes are primarily used for purposes of disambiguation. But there is nothing to disambiguate between "Jew" and "Judaism." Those two words are common words, easily distinguished from one another. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not oppose Bus Stop's proposal. Does anyone? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Bus stop is right; there's no need for a hatnote here, and the reciprocal hatnote at Jews can also be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I for one think the hatnotes should be here, and that they should be the way they are. there has been extensive discussion about these hatnotes in the past, and there is no way they can be removed just like that. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Debresser — is there some reason you feel the hatnotes should be there? It would be helpful if you explained your reasoning behind the stance which you take on the issue concerning these hatnotes. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Debresser that the hatnotes should stay, especially given the disagreements over what this entry's topic should include. If anything this talk page is ample demonstration of the fact that the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" are not "easily distinguished from one another."Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Jew and Judaism are not easily distinguished from one another?" Jew = person; Judaism = concept. Doesn't that distinguish between the two? Or are there Judaisms walking around, or eating dinner at the next table? Do some people practice Jew? Do some people study the tenets of Jew? They are two words. They sound different. They are spelled differently. The hatnote is not merely harmless. In its activist capacity it agitates for divisions of topics along lines that are not supported by all sources. And it also points to divisions that are just plain meaningless. Example: The Purim holiday is religious. The Purim holiday is also cultural. Which article should the reader who is interested in Purim be looking at (aside from the Purim article itself). The Judaism (religion) article is directing the reader to the Jew article, which according to the hatnote is the place to be if one is looking for something "cultural." The hatnotes are unjustifiable. WP:HATNOTE provides examples of how hatnotes should be used. Can you find an example provided at that explanatory article that applies to the use we see here at the Jew article and the Judaism article? Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The topics covered by both entries are not "easily distinguished from one another". As long as that is the case the hatnote is needed.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo — can you give an example of an instance in which the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" are "not easily distinguished from one another"? Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Bus stop the hatnote does not disambiguate these terms it parses the subject matters suitable for each entry. I do not know why you insist that I prove this straw man argument correct.  I'm not making that argument at all.  Here is what it states -- This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jews.   What it separates is the religious from the ethnic, historic and ... etc.  My reference to the debates on this talk page has to do with the fact that some people apparently do not agree that these are separate subjects.  I think they are and I think the hatnote is important because confusion clearly exists.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo — Hatnotes have prescribed usages. Can you find a usage at WP:HATNOTE for the way in which hatnotes are being used here? Note the section Examples of improper use. Which one applies here? Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for cleanup
I don't think it's useful to have 17 footnotes needed in a short lead. It implies that the material discussed in the lead is not included in the body. If the subject is not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead, so a logical way to improve the article is by adding current lead topics to the body. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that so many footnotes in the lead is a little strange. On the other hand, they are there because certain statements were contested. I completely agree though, that anything in the lead should be in the body of the article as well, and that that is the better place for the footnotes. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rabbinic hermeneutics
I am going to add a section on Rabbinic hermeneutics, featuring R. Ishmael's 13 rules of interpretation. I think this is important because right now the article focuses on the contents of Jewish beliefs and practices. But there is also a Jewish way of thinking, and therefore Judaism is not just static, it is creative, and the rules of interpretation provide Jews with an important way to derive new interpretatins of the Bible. Another reason this section is important is because these principles are often overlooked by non-Jews. Despite claims about a "Judeo-Christian" culture, most people identify logic with Aristotle and hermeneutics with Dilthe and later, Gadamer. The "Judeo" part seems to drop out completely. What I am adding is in many different editions of the prayerbook and should not be considered fringe, partisan, or otherwise controversial. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This potential addition will be an issue due to its abstractness. It would be useful to not force readers to have a dictionary at their side to read an article on a basic subject. Might be safer to add your explanation of "hermeneutics," a word that many have never heard of, to the article R. Ishmael first to see if it could be incorporated later? This article is too short to be buried in esoteric rabbinic literature and philosophies, IMO. There are some who still can't agree on whether Judaism is a "religion," or what "religion" is. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously the massive section from one source, and one rabbi's opinions, such as, "Jews do not believe that the Torah consists solely of its written contents," does not belong here. Suggest you create a subpage or add to the R. Ishmael article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Wikiwatcher's opinion. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So do I - the sentence doesn't even say which Jews do not believe or do believe as R. Ishmael does. Is that talking about Orthodox or Conservative or Hasidic Jews or what? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you not believe? As far as I know, this passage is accepted by Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hassidic Jews. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take your word for that, not being Jewish myself, but surely there are other old sects beside these that did not ever have any influence of Talmudic rabbinic logic; so perhaps it should mention that this view is common to those sects that do accept the Talmud? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

All material in the article must come from some source. I have no problem explaining the word "hermeneutics" or using a simpler word. But I do not undestand the objection to the material itself. It is in the Talmud, the oral Law accepted by all Jews and a central text in Judaism; it is reprinted in most prayerbooks. This is far from esoteric, it is something taught to all Jewish boys (and in some cases girls) when they are young. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "logic" which I think is a word more people understand. As for the source, feel free to add any other. Most siddurim i know have it. The Artscroll Siddur has it, do you prefer that as a source? The point is that these rules are so widely disseminated among Jews we could provide hundreds of sources if you wish. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It just doesn't fit. You're adding a massive section of philosophical esoterica from one source. It's inserted without context or common language explanation as to why this particular source should deserve such inclusion, whereas a single quote from a contemporary scholar like Huston becomes a subject for heated debate and edit wars. Try adding it to the article for the rabbi, which is where it should be placed first. Otherwise, anyone could choose any source from any of the thousands of Judaism-related books, at their choosing, and simply cut and paste giant sections without any context or improvement to the main subject. It sets a precedence which would not be useful. Your addition is copied below--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It follows the section on Jewish literature, because it comes from two major elements of Jewish literature - the Talmud and the Siddur - and because it explains the basic principles by which Jews read that literature. You say "the rabbi" and really show your ignorance of Judaism. Most scholars agree "Rabbi Ishmael" is not just one person but the school associated with his name. More important, these pinciples associated with his name have been accepted by Judaism.

You ask why this should be accepted when Huston isnot - are you on some kind of vendetta? Are you angry that I questioned a source you liked? Are you trying to horse-trade, that you wil allow a source I like if I accept a source you like? THIS sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. The reason wew accept this is because it if rom the Talmud, which is along with the Tanakh the most important sacred literature in Judaism, and because this text, which is at least two thousand years old, has stood the test of time and continues to be studied and read by Jews and is so important in Judaism that it is guoted in full in our prayerbooks. I know of no heatred debate about the status of thse principles, but if you can find a reliable source that pressents another POV, add it.

THIS is how we collaborate on Wikipedia. I added sourced content in an NPOV way. There is nothing at all esoteric about this, anyone has access to it and it is read by Jews of all backgrounds and ages every day. BUT if you think there is some opposing view-point, please provide it. But do not just delete it because you do not like it. We do not put our own points of view into the article. I put this in because it is so widely used in Judaism and fills a big gap in the article. Please explain to me why you delete this section but not a section on religious doctrine when Judaism has no dogma or creed? But if you do not belive me, hey, just find a credible source that says a majority of Jews reject the thirteen pinciples of logic. Add useful knowledge, do not delete it. Adding this reveals to non-Jews a very important part of Judaism they do not know about. That makes it valuable. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This section is at least as widely accepted among Jews as Mainmonides Ani Ma'amim'' which we include in the article. Be consistent: if we include Maimonide's thirteen principles of faith, in an article on a religion that has no creed and dogma, we should also include Rabbi Ishmael's thirtten principles of logic, in an article on a religion that does emphasize Torah study.'' Do include one and not the other smacks of an agenda. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition by User:slrubenstein for review
Jews do not believe that the Torah consists solely of its written contents. They view the Torah as dynamic, because it contains within it a host of interpretations. The following are Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic, for the interpretation of the Torah. These principles build on rules first proposed by Rabbi Hillel, and are found in the introduction to the Sifra, an early Midrash. They were later accepted by the sages of the Talmud, and are reproduced in many Jewish prayer books. They constitute an important Jewish contribution to logic and hermeneutics, and jurisprudence.
 * Principles of Jewish logic

of other passages.
 * 1) A law that operates under certain conditions will surely be operative in other situations where the same conditions are present in a more acute form
 * 2) A law operating in one situation will also be operative in another situation, if the text characterizes both situations in identical terms.
 * 3) A law that clearly expresses the purpose it was meant to serve will also apply to other situations where the identical purpose may be served.
 * 4) When a general rule is followed by illustative particulars, only those particulars are to be embraced by it.
 * 5) A law that begins with specifying particular cases, and then proceeds to an all-embracing generalization, is to be applied to particulars cases not specified but logically falling into the same generalization.
 * 6) A law that begins with a generalization as to its intended applications, then continues with the spcification of particular cases, and then concludes with a restatemnt of the generalization, can be applied only to the particular cases specified.
 * 7) The rules about a generalization being followed or preceeded by specifying particulars (rules 4 and 5) will not apply if it is apparent that the specification of the particular cases or the statement of the generalization is meant purely for achieving a greater clarity of language.
 * 8) A particular case already covered in a generalization that is neverhreless treated separately suggests that the same particularized treatment be applied to all other cases which are covered in that generalization.
 * 9) A penalty specified for a general category of wrong-doing is not to be auutomatically applied to a particular case that is withdrawn from the general rule to be specifically prohibied, but ithout any mention of the penalty.
 * 10) A general prohibition followed by a specified penalty may be followed by a particular case, normally included in the generalization, with a modification in penalty, either toward easing it or makin it more severe.
 * 11) A case logically falling into a general law but treated separately remains outside the provisions of the general law except in those instances where it is specifically included in them.
 * 12) Obscurities in Biblical texts may be cleared up from the immediate context or from subserquently occuring passages
 * 13) Contraditions in Biblical passages may be removed through the mediation

The above section was removed per discussion and placed here for any other comments. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher, do not delete content that does not violate our core policies. My edit was consistent with NPOV, NOR, and OR.  You seem simply to wish to disagree with me because i have disagreed with you in the past? In the meantime, this is not esoterical.  Kabbalah is esoteric.  Something that is found in every prayerbook is not esoteric.  This is considered a very important text in Judaism, and speaks to one of the most important aspects of daily Judaism: Jewish study.  Your attempt to minimize the importance of Jewish study, and the principles contral to the Oral Law, smacks of some kind of agenda.  In the mean time, do not delete content that adds information without violating policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have no objection to anyone adding other views or content concerning Jewish study and logic ... Neusner comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. I added this text because it is one virtually all Jews have accepted as authoritative or at least very important, and it brings to the article a dimension of Judaism that is very oimportant but lacking.  Why keep excluding this side of Judaism? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This section is at least as widely accepted among Jews as Mainmonides Ani Ma'amim which we include in the article. Be consistent: if we include Maimonide's thirteen principles of faith, in an article on a religion that has no creed and dogma, we should also include Rabbi Ishmael's thirtten principles of logic, in an article on a religion that does emphasize Torah study.  Do include one and not the other smacks of an agenda. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that reverting Sl and insisting he talk on the discussion page is disengenuous if no one responds to him. There was nothing in his edit that violated any principle that I know of. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing disingenuous about trying to get people to abide by WP:BRD. Two separate editors agreed with the objection to the material initially and Slrubenstein went ahead and reverted anyway.  There is also no rush to include material this second or to demand that people have the time to properly respond to Slrubenstein over the weekend. I have limited time at the moment myself.  Currently my objections are that he has added material based on a primary source without any indication of how notable the material is from secondary and tertiary sources.  The material from Maimonides, which Slrubenstein is comparing his material too, is usually included in textbooks about Judaism and even in those about the World's Religions with sections on Judaism.  I can dig up tertiary sources that include this material early this week if you really want it.  I have never come across the material Slrubenstein has added in any such tertiary sources however.  It is up to him to show that it is notable and to do so from sources that are not primary sources.  I'm reverting him again and I'm asking you please to abide by WP:BRD.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris -- it is certainly disengenuous to take the time to revert with a demand that he discuss -- at the very moment that his discussion is sitting there unaddressed by you.


 * As for primary sources -- Maimonides is a primary source for himself, and a secondary source for the Mishneh, which makes him a tertiary source for the Torah. As for sources about JUDAISM per se -- by your reasoning all Jews are primary sources since they are talking about their own religion.  That would make only writings by gentiles or at least totally non-religious Jews to be secondary.  That's stretching the meaning of primary too far.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not sources are primary or secondary within Jewish tradition is not the point in this particular context. If you use a prayer book as a source for a Jewish belief or practice (like the practice of biblical hermeneutics) it is a primary source and it should by obvious why.  That is what Slrubenstein was doing.  If the source itself was being used to explicate the Talmud in some way then it would have been a secondary source.  This is why JFW writes below, "As an example, however, they are unparalleled."  Example because this is a primary source of a larger practice about which Slrubenstein was writing.  Also, can you please refrain from this "disingenuous" stuff.  You should not be commenting on editors or their motives but on content.  For the last time, when he reverted back to his version there were multiple objections on the talk page (3-1 against his edit).  It is not unreasonable to ask him to have patience and abide by WP:BRD.  This revert warring editing when editors just know they have to be right, against the social conventions that ask us to discuss patiently on talk pages, only hurts the encyclopedia.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but a prayer book is hardly a primary source for anything other than itself. You can't just go around claiming that everything you don't want to use is "primary" and can't be used.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As an example of religious practice a prayer book is absolutely a primary source and for the last time can you stop commenting on my behavior -- e.g. "you can't just go around claiming ...". This is particularly frustrating because said behavior is being misrepresented.  You believe what you want but please stick to the convention of discussing content and not editors.  It only contributes to a hostile atmosphere in which things become personal.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris -- sorry, but you're grasping at straws here. The Book of Common Prayer is not a primary source for Anglicanism.  It quotes the 39 principles, to be sure, but is not ITSELF those principles.  It quotes the Bible, but is not ITSELF the Bible.  The same is true for the various Jewish siddurs.  They just aren't primary sources for anything other than themselves.  Also, you can't just go around claiming a hostile atmosphere.  It doesn't really help anything.  How about stick to the subjects instead of claiming people aren't sticking to the subjects?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SkyWriter I'm letting this go because it has no bearing on any current content discussions any-longer. If it comes up again, however, I will bring it to the RS/N because clearly we don't agree on what is and is not a primary source for a statement about a particular religious practice.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that this section consists almost entirely of original research. Some examples:


 * They view the Torah as dynamic, because it contains within it a host of interpretations. Any sentence which includes the word "because" is drawing a conclusion. Without a source that says it, that's the very definition of OR.
 * These principles build on rules first proposed by Rabbi Hillel. Sez who?  You may be right, though calling Hillel "Rabbi" doesn't demonstrate a familiarity with the sources, but Wikipedia isn't about being right.  It's about being sourced.
 * They constitute an important, and one of Judaism's earliest, contributions to logic, hermeneutics, and jurisprudence. If you're calling something important, you need to bring a source that says it's important.

But Griswaldo is wrong about it being a primary source. It's a primary source about Rabbi Yishmael's principles. It's a secondary source about the Torah. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also added requests for citations at the three points noted above, and fixed an extra line break in the middle of principle 13. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my answer to Skywriter above. It was clearly a primary source.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lisa, I have just added some citations. My larger point is that Rabbinic hermeneutics, how Jews study Torah, is important, at least as important as Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, an integral part of judaism, and needs some coverage in the article.  Ishmael's 13 middot seem to be the most widespread, and considered fundamenatal by those who have written on the Talmud.  But I would be glad if other views on Rabbinic hermeneutics were added to this article; it is a big gap to anyone who knows anything about Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein, there are so many flaws in your argument, mostly related to what you personally think about what "all" Jewish boys learn and are taught," and the "Jewish way of thinking," that there's really nothing to respond to. It's total OR of your opinion. Even if you claimed to be Jewish, which you do only by implication with your username, it's still your personal opinions. You also shift the burden of "untruth" to others, by absurd demands:
 * But if you do not believe me, hey, just find a credible source that says a majority of Jews reject the thirteen pinciples of logic.

I'll have to remember that when I can't support an edit: "Hey, prove me wrong with credible sources." And you then canvass for helpers, like you did on earlier challenged edits, who almost always stop by to back you up. And just in case all of that's not enough, you can always just accuse other editors of bad faith:
 * Are you on some kind of vendetta? Are you angry that I questioned a source you liked?  Are you trying to horse-trade?

With such a formidable array of tools at your disposal you make it hard for others to improve the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiwatcher, thanks for your note on my talk page -- and I'm sorry that you had forgotten this, but it was only two days ago. This is what I was referring to.  Let's assume good faith and practice civility, okay?  I appreciate that you said you wanted that on my talk page.  Perhaps you could start us off by apologizing for this...SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean. I have just added several citations, so no, this is not original research.  Besides all I was doing was summarizing what was already in this and other articles on Jewish topics - I guess you do not know about those.  As for canvassing, well, you just said you do not take my word for it.  fine, I just want other people who have been active in editing this article to participate in the discussion; that seems like the positive way to build an article (needless to say they have and do not always agree with me, so what - at least they are knowledgable).  As to contributing, well, I am not sure what you have contributed at all.  At least I added real content to the article, with a citation.  In the meantime, next time you want to criticize an edit of mine, please try to find a better reason than the fact that I had objected to an edit of yours. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I almost forgot that "fabrication" and "misrepresentation" of comments are also part of your arsenal, such as your conclusion:
 * find a better reason than the fact that I had objected to an edit of yours.
 * If anyone else wants to take Sl's bait, happy eating. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And for this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment. If I had been asked prima fascie whether the 13 rules should be included, my answer would have been negative. A review of a random page of Talmud indicates that there are many other ways of exegesis apart from the 13 rules (for instance hekesh, the concept of al tikra, the process of a tserichata etc). If we were to mention Ishmael's rules, which are important enough to have incorporated into the daily prayers, then they should only serve as an example and in that case I would not have reproduced them verbatim. As an example, however, they are unparalleled. JFW | T@lk  22:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear that given the detail of the Talmud as well as all the commentaries on it, an example is all that is possible so I chose the most popular one (in the same way that we quote anima'amim verbatim and in its entirety). But if you know of other good sources we could use for a section on Jewish hermeneutics, I'd welcome your input.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's entirely reasonable to include a section on Jewish hermeneutics, because they are so foreign to other systems of thought and truly reflect what is unique about Judaism. Judaism basically starts with a rule and then probes it in a dozen ways to see what principles seem to apply to that rule.  I found myself doing that on the fly with a question of Kol Ishah.  Can a man listen to a woman?  Can a woman listen to a man?  Can a man listen to a recording of a woman?  Can a woman listen to a recording of a woman?  By probing I found out that Kol Ishah is a prohibition on a man listening, rather than a woman singing.  And then I had to laugh because I had just done that weird Talmudic probing I had never quite understood before.  Other faiths begin with a principle and move to a rule, and so don't quite get as entangled.  Regardless of the specific source that is applied, we should pick one and use it for the article as an example, and Sl has certainly done that.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reference works I've looked at in the last few minutes I'm satisfied that this example is probably the most notable. For instance, The Oxford Companion to the Jewish Religion, writes the following: However the companion has very little on hermeneutics and the prominent exposition here still needs to be justified in relation to due weight in the entry. See below.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The employment of seven hermeneutical principles is attributed in the sources to Hillel. But the formulation of thirteen principles by the first- to second-century teacher, Rabbi Ishmael, is the usually accepted formulation, appearing in the standard Prayer Book as part of the morning service. This inclusion in the Prayer Book is based on the idea that every Jew, in addition to his prayers, should study each day something of the Torah, which the rules provide in capsule form, although it cannot be imagined that the average worshipper has an inkling of what he is saying when he recites these difficult rules."

Consensus request
As User:slrubenstein unilaterally restored a large mass of copied text that was removed with talk page explanation, and did so despite an early consensus by other editors to the removal, it would appear that he bypassed acceptable BRD protocol by forcing the disputed addition into this article. I feel that a removal of the material pending a proper consensus by neutral (i.e. unsolicited) editors would be reasonable so we can move on to fixing pre-existing problems with the article. For example: Section "Jewish religious texts" is simply a list without much context, except to say it is a list; "Jewish legal literature" is a large and unsourced section of OR; ditto "Jewish philosophy." These are all large subjects which we should be finding sources for, instead of wasting time. Let's keep it simple: Remove or Keep, pending consensus, proper discussion, and hopefully meaningful 3rd party citations to support and explain the material.


 * Remove, for reasons explained earlier, with his first response to consensus to remove being, Why do you not believe? As far as I know, this passage is accepted by Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Hassidic Jews. This is not a solid rationale for forcing a large amount of copied text. It should have been summarized as a relevant subject, with 3rd party sources, instead of taking one editor's personal opinion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on and give Slrubenstien a couple of days to explain why his material belongs in an encyclopedia entry on Judaism. I still haven't seen a justification for this.  We could write millions of pages on Judaism so clearly everything can't go into the entry.  Why this material?  I think only tertiary and secondary sources can prove the case for this not being WP:UNDUE.  I agree that ideally it should stay out of the entry until such time that consensus is gotten, but I'm not going to play this edit warring game with those who snub their noses at WP:BRD.  Let them respond but let's set a deadline.Griswaldo (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore as long as Sl is said to be doing this unilaterally (which he is not) and ignoring BRD (which he is not). Please participate in the existing discussion, Wikiwatcher -- in a less condescending tone.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Said the pot to the kettle. How about we all focus less on each other and more on the content.  How is this large amount of text on hermeneutics justified?  Is it presented with undue weight or due weight here?  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gris -- give it a rest. You've seen Wikiwatcher's comments (as everyone else can see) and haven't said anything to him about it.  Let's drop the partisanship and try to come to a consensus without beating people up in the process.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I've done a little research (see above) and I also agree that if we are to include material on Rabbinic hermeneutics then the current material appears to be the most notable.  Questions remain, however, regarding whether or not this should be included and if so how much text should be devoted to it.  The reference sources I found information about Rabbinic hermeneutics in do not devote this amount of text to them.  One of those sources is an entire book length reference work on Judaism, and it has a paragraph that is summary in nature ... not outlining all the thirteen points.  So how should we proceed?  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on/Ignore Either allow other users to built their case (i am not familiar with the current issue... but i am reading some books) since not everyone has time to contribute everyday and a constructive discussion takes place or simply ignore the actions of Wikiwatcher1. Moreover, Wikiwatcher1 should have helped the other users by simply googling "jewish philosophy" or checking JSTOR before deleting sections and even read the new sources such as the book on Jewish philosophy (see chapter 11) that he claims is totally OR. Have a nice day...A.Cython (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A.Cython ... the section being disucssed is not about Jewish philosphy, but about Jewish Biblical interpretation or "hermeneutics".Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you read the chapter you will see that the Jewish philosophy is very much interlinked/interwoven with the interpretation of the Bible.A.Cython (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Griswaldo's research. I think there is an underlying issue here, which is the distinction between "Rabbinic Judaism" and "Judaism." As a historical period, historians refer to Rabbinic Judaism as that period covering the composition of the Mishnah and the Talmud. As a religion, I think most Jews do not distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and Judaism. For example, Jews do not consider the Talmud to be a text sacred just to the Rabbis, they consider it sacred for all Jews today. To the case in point, R. Ishmael's principles are printed in most sidurim, making them part of contemporary Judaism as well.

As to why hermeneutics are important, I think some of the Rishonim and Rambam too believed that these hermeneutical principles were revealed by God at Sinai. Even if they were not, they provide a crucial link between the Torah she biktav and Torah she baal peh. Tht three cornerstones of Judaism are Torah, prayer, and good deeds. Hermeneutics are the starting point of Torah study. Without these hermeneutics, we wouldn't know what kinds of work are forbidden by God on the Sabbath, for example.

I was asked an absolute question; now I will ask a relative question: why are Rambam's thirteen principles of faith more important than Jewish hermeneutics? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I know the answer to that. What I do know is that I see the 13 principles of faith mentioned almost always in reference works and introductory texts that deal with Judaism.  I don't see Ishmael's 13 hermeneutic principles in these types of works.  As far as I know we follow the lead of other sources here in order to decide what to include.  That said I'm beginning to think that we should include something here but I wonder if we should whittle it down to a short paragraph instead.  Maybe a separate entry should be created that outlines the 13 points and discusses them more thoroughly and then it can be linked for further detail.  Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only have my own opinion as to why you find the thirteen principles of faith in so many sources. In this matter, I think asking "who is the audience" is an important part of "why" but that is just my opinion. Be that as it may, I do not think we should simply immitate other encyclopedias. Most prayerbooks have Ishmael's 13 forms of logic, and that is for a Jewish audience, so that tells me something about what Jews think is important to other Jews.

I would not mind wittling down the thirteen forms of logic, if we also whittled down Rambam's thirteen elements of faith. This seems reasonable given that the article itself emphasizes that Judaism is not a creedal religion, does not have a dogma. Note what the section says about Josephus, and how even today what es essential is the Bible and commentaries like the talmud (of which Ishmael's hermeneutics are very veyr important). Rambam's 13 principles of faith were contested for two centuries, but Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic were never contested (although it is true there are other hermeneutical principles besides Ishmael's). Many Jewish authorities have said Judaism is a religion of law not faith. Shouldn't our article reflect that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I actually agree with you that the 13 elements of faith are over emphasized in introductory texts and reference works, for the very reason you state -- Judaism is not for the most part a creedal religion. Again, personally I believe this is an unfortunate remnant the influences that Christianity still has on the study of religion.  Though one cannot also pass over the influences that Christianity has had on Judaism itself, as it is practiced in Western contexts like the United States, where everyone has turned ambiguously into a Protestant! :) I'm half joking.  The problem becomes how to justify this reliably through sources when these 13 principles are so prevalent in them.  Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was being elliptical so you missed my point. If all we do is imitate other encyclopedias and popular texts, we serve no purpose - might as well just let people use the encyclopedias they already have access to. Wikipedia should be something different and should just be based on its own principles: first, Be bold!. Then, a wiki-pedia, that is written by anyone and everyone, not some editorial board for Oxford University Press. If editors here acting in good faith can agree that what anyone added is informative, that is generally sufficient. Finally, our core pore policies (which come after being bold and being wiki), which act as a brake on an editor abusing the wiki technology: NPOV, NOR, and V, and I believe I have complied with all three. And I believe I have been accountable to the "wiki" community - other editors ask me why I think this is important, and I take their queries seriously, and try to respons seriously. As a fellow member of the wikicommunity I have a responsibility to explain myself to you - but I have no responsibility to hold my edits accountable to the editorial boards of major reference works. Any WP editor who wished to do so should leave WP and seek a job for one of those standard reference works. Is the result different from Encyclopedia Britanica or other standard references? I hope so. If I didn't I would have zero interest in Wikipedia. I already have access to a great encyclopedia put together the usual way. I don't need something that mimics it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. Wikipedia is a grand 21st century experiment that's working overall. Considering how many nations are in serious conflict right now, separated by mere fences like Korea, it's almost breathtaking to see editors from everywhere working on the same article. Like siblings in any family, conflicts come up. It's just a good thing we're all not sitting in the same room as we write and discuss ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As some have pointed out, there are other hermeneutical principles. Following the lead of the section on faith and creed, where Ani Maamim is put in a text-box, I have put Ishmael's thirteen middot in a textbox. I have also mentioned a few other major sets of hermeneutical principles, and have added a quote from Neusner. Frankly, I think more can and should be said about (1) the place of these principles both in the Talmud and Midrash as texts to be studied, and (2) as rules (themselves divinely revealed??) by which the Torah she baal peh was transmitted over the centuries (3) as rules used to study the Torah and Talmud. I really welcome the input of others Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the changes you've made. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename section
This section should be renamed for accuracy. The content is not about some general Jewish principles of logic but specifically about Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics or Talmudic Hermeneutics. Something like Jewish Interpretation of the Torah or Torah Hermeneutics would work. The section may not be in the best place either. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and renamed the section and moved it into the "Jewish religious texts" section where it belongs.Griswaldo (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Philosophy
I do not think that this belongs in the same section as the one that includes the Talmud and Midrash. I suggest that we have one section on sacred literature (Torah to the Talmud) and a separate section for non-sacred commentaries and philosophy, or if it makes more sense for literature (of any sort, exigetical, commentary, philosophy) from the rishonim on. Thoughts? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical material
Okay, so far the debate over the hatnote is 3-2, which I would say is too close to justify any change. So we have a hatnote that says that people looking for historical information should go to Jews plus we have an article Jewish history. Yet we have material in this article on Jewish history. I propose it be moved either to the article on Jews or the article on jewish history. Does anyone object if I move it? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a great idea. It's obvious that an article on a 5,000 year-old religion is going to incorporate history. Redundancy is not surprising. Trying to surgically remove "history" from the subject can do no more than harm the article, even more than the recent addition of massive esoterical text, as I earlier mentioned. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple click takes the reader to Jewish history. I don't see any big deal in moving the section of this article on "Jewish history" to the Jewish history article. This may seem like a stupid reason but I think such a transfer of material is not such a bad idea because it can always be moved right back if we change our mind. In my opinion these articles (Judaism, Jews) are discombobulated. The hatnotes are like signs pointing elsewhere for things that are here. At least if we make the move that is being suggested, we can confidently say that "Jewish history" can be found in the Jewish history article. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "simple click" suggestion was first made as a cleaner way to add references to R. Ishmael's material, and give a summary in this article, instead of adding voluminous esoterica. The idea was ignored, and instead the unintelligible (to average non-scholars) material was expanded even further by adding more primary cut-and-paste material.


 * The logic is similar to the reason other material was deleted. For example, religion scholar Huston Smith, in his chapter titled "Judaism," notes that "one third of our Western civilization bears the mark of its Jewish ancestry." Huston clarifies the obvious link between Judaism and its history. However, even this simple sentence was too much for an editor who chose to edit war to keep it out, and out it is. To continue by trimming more "history" is another bad idea, despite the "simple click" rationale. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll butt out. I'll defer to others. You seem more tuned into this than I am. Perhaps Slrubenstein can clarify the reasoning behind the requested move. It appeals to me because it organizes material by subject, rather than have the same subject spread over two or three articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bus stop, although I appreciate your views on the topic. To reply to Wikiwatcher: Perhaps you misinterprete my proposal. I agree with you that it would be folly to try "to surgically remove" historical material that is interwoven throughout the text. My proposal is to remove the section that is excplicitly and exclusively on Jewish history viz. section 7. There isnothing surgical about this. This entire section can and should easily be merged with the history article.

As to your comparison with my recent addition (which, by the way, had NO esoteric content, and is not about anything esoteric); the two are in no way analogous. This article begins with a hatnote telling readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish history - it does not begin with a hatnote asking readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish hermeneutics. Moreover, the history section really is not a history of "Judaism," it is a history of the Jews, and clearly fits into other articles; Jewish hermeneutics is a central aspect of Judaism "as a religion" which is something you proclaim to care about. Finally, I was able to summarize Jewish hermeneutics in a relatively small section. Jewish history simply cannot be so summarized. So I see no basis for your analogy. No one is questioning the importance of Jewish history and if your only argument is that Jewish history is important, you loose. Jewish history is covered in a prominent article on Jewish history, an article that gives it full attention.

Bus stop is right, covering Jewish history here breaks up the flow, doesn't fit with the article, and cannot be done effectively. Also, making sure that our coverage of one topic in three different articles remains consistent can be a real headache. I repeat what I said at the beginning: a suggestion to get rid of the hat note has failed. So we keep the hat note. It is absurd on its face to agree to keep the hatnote and then to structure this article in a way that explicitly contradicts the hatnote. I am just asking that this article be what it claims to be about, and not be abot what it claims not to be about. Where is the objection? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 3-2 on such an highly visited article as this means no consensus, if you ask me. Even without that, 60% is hardly what I'd call "consensus". So no change to the hatnote, happily.Debresser (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what Slrubenstein said, I think, if I'm reading the above post correctly. Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I just adjusted my comment a little now to reflect that. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There seem to be some astounding contradictions in your line of reasoning, IMO. It was pointed out before you added 1,000 words (!) of estoteric prayer book recitations, that R. Ishmael's citations would be better if added to his personal article, with a "summary" here and a link to his 13 rules there, to save space. The exact opposite happened, as the lengthy primary text was added nonetheless, and was introduced with your own personal opinions, not citations.


 * "Hermeneutics" is defined as "the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures. . . the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis." "Esoterica" is defined as "things understood by or meant for a select few; recondite matters or items." This should be a clear article about a subject that average visitors could understand. Your additions seem to create the opposite result. Compare the section "Jewish philosophy," obviously a much broader subject, with yours. It's one paragraph of less than 100 words, with no OR, and a hatnote to a larger article. Very logical. Yet your added 1,000-word section, "Rabbinic hermeneutics," is of a much more specific sub-topic of Jewish philosophy. That's why I describe your edits as full of "astounding contradictions." It sort of reminds me of the time I was in line at "31 Flavors," next to a 300-pound lady. She commented how she only wanted 2 scoops instead of 3 since she was on a diet. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So you have absolutely nothing against the proposal? Good. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you were asking me, as I said up top, I didn't think it was a good idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I thought you misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing removing any nistorical context that is interwoven with the account of Judaism, which is what you were referign to. I am talking about section 7, a summary of Jewish history. Are you proposing that we delete the word "historical" from the hatnote, or that we merge the contents from the Jewish history article into this article? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither. Your comments seem to be avoiding the rationales given over the last few weeks in the discussions above. They all, in some way, answer your questions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Twain
The article currently has a quote from Mark Twain. Another editor considered this unbalanced, and added another quote from Mark Twain. I think any editor might wonder why this article should have two quotes from Mark Twain. Frankly, I am not sure why we need one quote from Mark Twain, who certainly was no expert in Jewish Studies. But the first quote I suppose could be argued to be presenting a generally held view of Jews, a view that might be held by Jews as well as by Gentiles. The new quote however seemed to me to serve only one of two purposes: to illustrate that southern US Jews following the Civil War were predatory exploiters, or illustrating that Mark Twain was anti-Semitic. The former is too specific an example to belong in an article that is about Judaism in general; the latter belongs in an article on mark Twain, not here. So I see no justification for adding the quote, it gives grossly undue-weight to Mark Twain or his opinions. So I deleted it. Now, if someone objects to the first Twain quote, they should register their objection here and we could discuss deleting the first Twain quote. But there is just no reason at all why an article on Judaism should have so much Mark Twain content. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to your logic, your comments appear to go directly against earlier edits to the article, where you unilaterally deleted much briefer quotes by recognized scholars and historians. Hence, to debate about whether an American novelist like Twain is worth keeping, with a 100-word quote about his personal opinions of Jews, might strike some editors (obviously none here, however) as an example of contradictory logic. On another related observation, why wasn't the earlier talk discussion archived in this talk page where it can be accessed? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, the study of Torah, and a text on how to study Torah that is found in all major Jewish prayerbooks and thus read every day by all observant Jews, is way too much for an article on Judaism - I mean, how are these things even related? What the article on Judaism really needs is more stuff by Mark Twain, the most important Jewish thinker of the 19th century and read by all Jews daily, um, well, I think ... Yeah, this is a persuasive argument! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the Twain quote here as a contrast to Twain's summation of the referenced writing. As Slrubenstein unknowingly notes, the insertion was a compare and contrast, as I read the entire article, and many of Twain's observations were in harmony with the history of the Jews and their religious views and laws, as well as their controlling the financial institutions and other established cultural mediums of other countries that they move into. Twain references Rothschild, the diaspora and other notable reasons that the Jews were expelled from Spain and other European countries, which is contrast to his summation that was posted here. The point Twain was making was that the Jews are brilliant people who stick together and support each other, while exploiting the "Gentiles" for profit's through business, banking and other business's especially. So I found it ironic that a part of Twain's text was inserted as it reads positively for Judaism and the Jew. Twain was addressing the issue of the Jewish Community standing together through centuries, while watching the other societies deteriorate around them, because Gentiles are different than Jews as Slrubenstein acknowledges in his first statement of this topic. Twain's ultimate conclusion was that the Jew needed to assimilate more into the culture that they lived, and that the hatred for the Jew was based more upon economics, than religion.


 * Also, I inserted that Elizabeth Taylor is a converted Jew and referenced it. Just to see if it got reverted as well. As of this writing it is still there without a peep, and other edits have followed. This falls in line with the expected result, that a true positive (Taylor) is acceptable, where a true negative (Twain) is not acceptable in the Jewish community (and other communities as well). You claim scientific reasoning Slrbenstein, does this little experiment prove my point? I've already anticipated your answer and charges, please verify. Victor9876 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming your agenda (i.e. I inserted . . . just to see if it got reverted as well.) However, this article is not an personal test site, where one can plant material for observation to see what happens. It's obvious from your comment and new addition, and your unconcern with earlier deletions by scholars, that you are aiming to create an "opinion about Jews" section as part of this article. This has a few problems: This is not an article where anyone's "opinions" about Jews is relevant, unless they come from scholars or historians about the "religion" itself. Second, once you open the floodgates to anyone's published opinions, where do you stop? How can you post long commentaries by a novelist, and then not allow comments by industrialists, politicians, sea captains, or astronauts? You obviously can't. Hence, all of your material has been played with a stacked deck and clear goals, none of which are compatible with WP guidelines, i.e. point of view and reliable sources. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. This is a talk page and not an article. Your assertion that I am trying to create an "opinion about Jews" is hogwash, among your other assumptions. I have stated my case, no need to make it something it is not. Twain should never have been used out of context as he was. No where does it say that on a talk page, that motives can't be revealed - in fact - motives with subversive language is used all the time on WP talk pages. Now you want to make an honest study into some form of criminal act. Again, this is a talk page and you have expressed your erroneous opinion. Thank you for that. Victor9876 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that the first Twain quote is positive, as you seem to think. It can be interpreted diferent ways. I read your edit summary and understood that you were trying to provide balance.  My reasoning stands: Twain, neither a jewish leader nor an expert on jews, deserves little weight in the article on Jews.  The quote that I left has been here some time and perhaps reflects a consensus view which is why I hesitated cutting it.  But I decided to do a little experiment of my own: I though that if Victor was really concerned with balance, he would acknowledge the other possible solution which would be to remove the first Twain quote.  I signaled the fact that I considered this an appropriate edit, to see if Victor would rather (1) argue to reinsert the quote that makes Twain look like such an asshole or (2) delete the first Twain quote and avoid the problem altogether.  But it seems like Victor really wants us to use this article to expose Twain as an anti-Semite.  I still think that if Wikipedia must do that, it belongs on the Twain page and not here.


 * Victor is being very unfair to Wikiwatcher. We are all supposed to "assume good faith" and assuming good faith means assuming that when you make an eidt to an article you are doing so to improve it.  Now Victor is admitting that he did not add the quote to improve the article but to conduct some kind of study.  Wikiwatcher is quite right to challenge this.  Victor says he has a problem with using a Twain quote out of context.  I believe he is lying.  here is why I think he is lying: had he thought that the use of Twain in the first place was inappropriate, he would have (1) said so on the talk page and then (2) deleted the quote from the article.  But he did not do this, so obviously he has no problem with quoting Twain out of context.  He was just looking for a pretext to add anti-Semetic material to the article.  I repeat what i wrote when I first deleted it: any editor who thinks that there is a problem with the first Twain quote should just delete it.  I am waiting for that to happen.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, my wait is over. Thank you Wikiwatcher.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Victor9876, this article is not the place for random quotes about Jews; see WP:UNDUE. Also, I've removed your insertion at Elizabeth Taylor, since it violated WP:MOSBIO, which I suggest you review. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayjg - her Anglo-American status is in the led, why shouldn't her conversion to Judaism be? WP:MOSBIO allows it in my reading of the rule. If not, so be it. Leave it out. As to the random quotes, I didn't put the first one there, I merely placed another for comparing and contrasting. I note for your adminstrative position, that Slrubenstein, above your response, called Twain an asshole via the "look like an" remark and calls me a liar via "lying", I hope I get the same latitude here, since you and Slrubenstein are both Jewish.

First Slrbenstein, you have apparently not read the Twain treatise in its entirety, Twain is not making the case of being anti-Semetic, just making observations that most Gentiles of his time, would not have bothered with, and I mention earlier, tried to make the case of assimilation by the Jews into their host culture, and that the hatred for the Jews by whites, was more economic than religious, but surely, both were the case. Nor, am I anti-Semetic. I happen to agree with the Palestinians in Gaza over the land issues, they are Semites as well. That does not make me a Jew hater either, which I am reading in your taunts to have me be uncivil. Every editor has several choices how they edit, not the 1, 2, 3, that you elude to. My experience on WP says remove something from an article, it gets reverted, include something, it gets deleted, so to prevent 3RR's and edit warring, I have tried to develop a strategy that works best for everyone, since few use the talkpage before moving ahead boldly as the rules suggest. You are being disengenuous in your suggestions that you were trying a study of your own, and I can say it without numbers, why didn't you remove it yourself since you mentioned you didn't think it was appropriate? You are no Freud. In fact, your page and self-acknowledgments make you more of a narcissist, than a scientist. That being said, my Narcissism is better than your narcissism (lol)! Victor9876 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is probably nothing more damaging to Wikipedia's original goals as the in-fighting among editors and blatant hypocrisy. To see such behavior on an article for one of Western civilization's primary religions is insulting to the very concept. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * CURIOSITY! Wikiwatcher1 - after a cordial exchange, there appears to have been a reason for you to remove material and leave the above statement, which is confusing. Judaism is an Middle Eastern Religion not a Western Religion in terms of development. As to the in-fighting and the resulting insult remark, was that directed at me? Or all who are here? Victor9876 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term was in reference to removed material that attempted to add depth to this article. As for in-fighting, etc. it was directed at everyone, including myself and editors who prefer to cower than confront. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * O.K., my only concern is that you removed an entry of mine that supported my thesis of Twain with a link to the Jewish source. Having done that, the balance left has been refactored from the flow of the discourse. Would you mind putting it back? Victor9876 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a blanket deletion of the section, so you can add back whatever you need to. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Personally, best to see Twain gone here. He's not a scholar, at best his (full) comments (both about Jewish survival and unbecoming conduct on the part of Jews) belong in an article discussing the evolving image of Jews in popular society over time&mdash;and to what degree it matched contemporary Jewish self-image would be of interest as well. It's not for this article.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Twain never reported to be a scholar of anything, those descriptions are by others. And how many scholars are there on Wikipedia in terms of anything, including Judaism? So perhaps deleting the article would be the best thing to do, since there is so much rancor over the issues as there are with Christianity, Islam and all other religions. That would leave all individuals accountable for themselves and not some invented deity. Victor9876 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, there's no point in including cherry-picked quotes from Mark Twain, unless they are extremely famous and highly relevant. Otherwise WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR apply. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we in the article or on the article talk page Jayjg? I understand policies and their applications, I'm not a newbie. The talk page is a discussion area where POV, i.e., "I don't think...", "It should be...", "..that's not what it means..." are all POV's and appropriate on the talk pages in discussions. Where are the qualifiers "extremely famous and highly relevant" in the policies? Notability is even subjective. These policies are generally done through consensus, I say generally because sometimes a consensus is made by two people. I have yet to see you admonish Slrubenstein for WP:CIVIL and WP:PA's that he flagrantly abused above - the standards are the same for everyone. So until I see some consistency in the application of the policies, please don't lecture me on policies. And what about Wikiwatcher1 removing contributions from the talk page with no forewarning to anyone, that is generally reserved for admins. As I told him, he refactored the thread, and a source I used previously is now gone, that would be helpful for this very discussion. His reply above was that I could put back whatever I want. That was not the point, he should have asked others if he could remove information on the talk page for a consensus - it was never done, and I am not responsible for that, as I am not responsible for the first Twain quote in the article. Do you think I would dare put quotes from Martin Luther in the article who was a major influence on Hitler and others? Not a chance, and Martin Luther and Hitler are "extremely famous and highly relevant" to Judaism and the Jewish people, not that they want them to be, but they are and I need not go into the why's. A visit to Hitler's Article has more Holocaust history than Hitler's own history, and multiple links to other sites about the Holocaust. It is a part of history, with many variations of POV within the history by various individuals and groups. If I may suggest, archive this discussion - it has gone way beyond it's intended outcome and is starting to rise above the Tower of Babel; cheers. Victor9876 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing this article's content, nothing else. If you want to discuss user conduct, I suggest an RFC. Jayjg (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Never the twain shall meet?

 * Victor, per your comment, "And what about Wikiwatcher1 removing contributions," you may have forgotten your comments earlier:  If you don't mind my making a suggestion, get rid of this thread if it was intended for my read only. Hence, it was erased at your request. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true, I did make the request pertaining to the thread at the time which was a sub-thread where you suggested a proper usage of Twain. This diff: [] shows the original thread with my contribution showing the Jewish Virtual Library supporting my contributes in the original discussion. You went a tad beyond that thread, and removed material that appeared to be repugnant to you at the time. Beyond the original request. I'm sure it may have been a mis-understanding, but it did remove content that was important before you added the referenced sub-section, which had unintentional refactoring on your part. That being said, Slrubenstein's uncivil remarks and personal attacks remain. Victor9876 (talk)

16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What you thought I a saw or even read, neither of which I did, is also wrong. I stated much earlier that the opinions of a novelist about Jews had no place in this article. Now that I read it, I see nothing "repugnant" about that material - sorry if that disappoints you. In any case, I said you could put back whatever links were removed. Nor do I feel that quotes from notable experts on a subject for which they are notable are out of place. But this is an article about a "Religion." It naturally seemed immediately out of place to include one writer's "general opinions" about Jews, their business acumen, or other perceived attributes, in the this article. And even under some stretch of the imagination, his comments were mentioned, it certainly wouldn't warrant 500 words in a Wiki article, but a link at most, to avoid undue weight.


 * I've apparently made the same mistake in the past, so I'm not being hypocritical. In the article Democracy for example, in a section "History of democracy," I added a brief quote by Thomas Erskine May, a recognized scholar on "democracy," author of Democracy in Europe (2 vol.), and one of the authors of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, with a link to his descriptions of what he claimed were democracy's biblical origins. Within minutes, an editor claiming to be a scholar of "Ancient Greece" removed it and chose to edit war over it, usually deleting the material without so much as a summary note. He made it clear on the talk page, including his own, that in his opinion Greece was the foundation of democracy, and anyone else's writings, even a legal scholar's, were hogwash. No one else objected to this editor's deletions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong again, but you appear to support religion with a guardianship attributed to "scholars". Does it profit them to be scholars, I would advance that it does, therefore it is a marriage of convenience to be noted as a scholar in any field professing religion as an absolute truth. That is where we would reach an impasse and differ profoundly. It is faith that has kept religions alive, in all countries, both ancient and recent. That faith can create bias' so great, that when they are in close proximity to each other, the differences in their beliefs lead to wars, and other inhumane actions, i.e., the Middle East conflicts. Religion is not a democracy, it is and has always been a theocracy, make all the claims you want about the liberal or conservative religions and their scholars, and like the Republicans and the Democrats, they will become indistinguishable in time and content. So if I understand you correctly, we really have nothing in common here to work with, except my appreciation of your photography, which you may claim as a God given gift, while denying your own talent as a reason for it. That's life. I am through here. Victor9876 (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your comments about the photos. Thanks. It's sort of a partnership: I take the photos, He provides the scenery. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that's a wonderful entendre. Victor9876 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)