Talk:Judaism/Archive 20

Religious
In this edit the first sentence of this article was changed from "Judaism is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews" to "of the religious Jews". Although that is true, as well argued in the edit summary, I have the feeling this should be discussed a little. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to the edit. Even non-observant or secular Jews will acknowledge that there is a religious dimension to Judaism, it is just a dimension they reject.  But their personally rejecting it does not change what Judaism is.  The rest of the phrase - "philosophy and way of life" isinclusive of non-religious elements that secular or unobservant Jews may honor, so the phrase applies to them as well.


 * There is a more serious issue than phrasing and that is communicating to readers that Judaism is a heterogeneous and complex thing that takes many forms. It includes approaches that are in conflict, too.  I suspect that part of the problem occurs when non-Jews, or Jews who were socialized in non-Jewish societies, try to compare Judaism to other things they are familiar with e.g. Christianity.  But sometimes differences are more informative than sinmilarlities.  The Talmud was written a long time ago; the Bible even longer - and both were written in a world that knew little or nothing of Christianity or even Islam.  Why should they all be smooshed to fit the same conceptual container? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also didn't like the edit. However, I found it hard to express the reason for my dislike in words. This is why I started this section. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there, User:Debresser, and thank you for starting this section. I am the one who made the edit and here is my reasoning: A "way of life" is something that is chosen by the living individual, it could be characterised by a commitment to religious or/and traditional personal and social customs and practices, or it could be something entirely independent of these. "Judaism" therefore cannot by described as a way of life of Jews en masse, since many Jews are, and could conceivably be, non-religious and unbelievers in Judaism, and follow if they choose a non-Judaic, perhaps even anti-religious way of life thereof. Therefore Judaism shall be deemed and described here in the encyclopedia as a way of life only of those Jews who adhere and are committed to the Judaic faith and tenets (hence, "religious" Jews), since an inclusion of all Jews into the statement would be unjust toward those Jews who do not believe in (or honor) Judaism, and will at the same time be misleading to those who seek information regarding Judaism itself in this our encyclopedia. The addition of the word "religious", to which User:Debresser seemingly has ambivalent feelings, does not introduce any emotional or intellectual connotations apart from the fact. Thus simple is the reasoning and justification of my edit. Most appreciatively, Maysara (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This would not be an issue if users were not insisting on having more than "religion" in the opening sentence. Maysara, there are many users who wanted the first sentence to simply state that "Judaism is the religion of the Jews" or something equivalent but it appears that a group of editors here are very resistant to this.Griswaldo (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo, the issue arose not only because of the words "way of life" in the definition, but also because of the "religion" aspect. Check Maysara's edit summary to see that clearly. Please, try not to raise old issues unless they are really related. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Debresser they are exactly related. Let's let Maysara answer this question -- Would you have the same objection if "philosophy and way of life" were removed from the first sentence?  Maysara's objection is that people who identify as Jews may in fact lead a non-religious way of life.  In other words secular Jews may lead a way of life that is not associated with "Judaism".  Unless I'm mistaken Maysara, like 99% of world outside of this talk page, associates Judaism with the religion of the Jews, and that's why the qualifier "religious Jews" was added.  If we simply said it was the religion of the Jews (and religion includes religious philosophy an a religious way of life by the way), the whole thing would be clear in a much more efficient manner.  But don't take my word for it.  Let's let Maysara answer for him/herself.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Griswaldo's question takes us on an unnecessary tangent. Maysara, the phrase "religion, philosophy, and way of life" is taken from a highly credible and significant source, the Encyclopedia Judaica.  Please remember that Wikipedia does not express the views of editors, it expresses significant views from reliable sources.  So regardless of your own opinion of what "way of life" means, our source, which is cited, views it as an appropriate descriptor of Judaism.  As to your point about the word "religious", I cannot speak to Debresser's "ambivalence" but I can tell you that in English I have heard Jews say "I am not religious" to mean that they were not spiritual, but when they express what you seem to be getting at, I have never heard a Jew describe it that way, I have heard Jews say that they were not "observant" - I think that is the most common word, and many also I have heard say they were not "traditional" but "unobservant" seems to be the word most Jews use. At least in the US.  Not sure about Canada or the UK or Australia or New Zeeland Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest people remember there are (at least) 2 meanings of "Jew"?


 * A member of the Jewish ethnic group.
 * A member of the Jewish religion.


 * So what does "Judaism is the religion of the Jews" mean?


 * If sense 1, it's not true. A fair number of ethnic Jews are Christians or Buddhists, & a few are even Muslims. To say that Judaism is their religion seems absurd.
 * If sense 2, it boils down to "Judaism is the Jewish religion", which sounds perilously close to tautology.


 * Peter jackson (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This second interpretation is about what I had in mind as well. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this is not the article on "Jews." But for now, I would point out that what it means to be a member of the Jewish ethnic group is complicated too.  I think all Jews would say that a Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer a member of the Jewish nation, is no longer an ethnic Jew.  Ethnic groups are socially constructed, and while birth can be one way a person becomes a member of an ethnic group (or in Jews' case, for males, circumcision), this does not mean that it is the sole condition for membership.


 * Another issue is, that there are many Jews who are not observant and who also may not be "religious" by your definition, who yet believe that they practice "Judaism." This article already makes it clear that there are many different modern forms of Judaism.  It is true that orthodox Jews may reject some forms as not being really or authentically Jewish.  But it is not for Wikipedia to take sides.  Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, for example, do not observe all law; there are also observant jews who do not believe in God.  This article has to acknowledge that Jews have diverse, sometimes contrasting ideas of what "Judaism" is.  I think the article actually does a fair job of doing this, making it clear what may be held solely by Orthodox Jews and what is more generally held.  Perhaps we could do better.  But we need to be careful not to give the impression that the Orthodox version of Judaism is the only version of Judaism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Jews have diverse, sometimes contrasting ideas of what 'Judaism' is," as do Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jains, Hindus, and so on in relation to their own -ism. Peter I'm not playing logic games I'm quoting reference sources.  Take it up with Oxford University Press, etc.  They all seem to think that a variant of "religion of the Jewish people" is plenty meaningful.  Of course any number of other ways could be used to introduce the subject matter while stating that it is primarily a religion.  That one is just convenient given the particular historical form that Judaism has taken over the years and its close connection to ethnicity.  Will it work perfectly?  Of course not, but nothing will.  These games and logical arguments devised editors are huge distraction.  This entry remains one of the most stubborn in terms of resisting WP:V, because so many who edit here have a personal relationship with the subject matter and allow their own personal identity concerns and their own experience of the subject matter to overrule what reliable sources say.  I'll leave this alone, no problem, but don't pretend that it isn't related to the problem brought up by the new editor here and don't pretend that it wont keep on coming back here.  All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, first of all; it needs be strongly emphasized that resolving to “reliable sources” must not be a method to challenge and silence dialogue and deliberation among editors and participants, in regard to the content of the article. Sources are meant to support facts, and it is therefrom that they derive their power. But this power remains “propositional”, not conclusive or decisive, in case disagreement has ensued regarding facts and statements and despite of the presence of reliable sources. Sources are countless, and you'll find, even in some scientific matters, that they expand in their views from one extreme to another. There are thousands of examples of this, and “reliability” itself is intentionally loosely defined in Wikipedia, because the spirit of the project is based on public and social rational deliberation and dialogue, and not a contest of sources. This point is very important.


 * As in every article about religious issues; there certainly is a visible, or rather 'audible' degree of bias in respect to tonality, and occasionally the representation of information, in the current version(s) of this article. I read former discussion entries and decided to spare myself involvement in discussions which, as User:Griswaldo mention, should certainly have been addressed independently from the possible bias and prejudice of those who bring the drive of religious fervor, protectiveness and jealousy, into the discussion page. [i.e. whether the word “philosophy” in the first sentence of definition is being used appropriately and in a justifiable context], but again, undesirable as they may be, I believe that the intelligent reader will be able to detect these biases of tonality and discourse, and neutralize them automatically.


 * It is however a clear sign of active prejudice; that the disagreement arising even on the level of the very definition of the subject of the article, is being ignored. The standard behaviour would be to make an active effort to avoid disagreement regarding the definition, and to give the most accurate and unassailable statements; and then in the body of the article, to represent the two arguing view points equally and with no desire to “win” the battle in the article itself. (i.e. Origins of Judaism represents both the traditional and critical views of the matter). But in order for this to happen, editors must be ready to compromise, and be willing to see the point of view which they do not believe in, being equally represented just as the point of view which they believe and support.


 * The problem which I sought to handle in this article, however, and which I knew in advance, will spur some confrontation, is that of generalization. For the Jewish people are an ethnic community, at least in their first origins, of which historiography continues to quarrel with archeology regarding its facts. However, the situation at hand is that the correlation between Judaism and Jews, is not conditionally maintained. For example, from the natural world: we can say that cats always have tails; but we cannot deduce therefrom that all animals which possess a tail are cats; or that every tail must necessarily belong to a cat. Likewise, Judaism exists exclusively in Jews, but Jews can exist independently from Judaism. Moreover, it is conceivable that even if all Jews dispelled with Judaism, they will not cease to be Jews, and the Jewish identity will not vanish thereafter; and that is because Judaism forms a part of the Jewish identity, but it does not comprise it in its entirety. As long as the relation is not conditionally and necessarily maintained, we cannot establish such facts as these stating that Judaism is the philosophy and way of life of Jews (i.e. en masse).


 * There are indeed some primitive tribes which, in the entirety of their populations, adhere and practice and live uniformly, and of which description we can more easily defend generalized statements. As far as I know, the Jewish people are not of the type; and I know many Jewish people who would strongly agree; yet I now leave the matter to the collective wisdom of other participants, and to the potential fruitfulness of public deliberation.


 * Good luck, Maysara (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maysara — Too long; didn't read. Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Same here. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * and Maysara is flattered! Maysara (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Judaism is the religion of the Jews because Jews, for lack of a better term, created/developed/elucidated Judaism, and because practitioners of Judaism are, by definition, Jews. The fact that some Jews practice other faiths, or none at all, is irrelevant to that. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple and true.Griswaldo (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, neither simple nor true: According to the same logic (i.e. that Islam was created by Arabs), we should say that Arabs are Muslims, or that Islam is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of Arabs. But it then will be erroneous to say so because of the same logic and reasoning I attempted to provide above. There are many Arabs who are not Muslim, and if Islam vanishes, the Arab identity will not therewith vanish. "The fact that some Jews practice other faiths, or none at all," cannot be irrelevant; it is intrinsically relevant; and it means that the Jewish identity encompasses Judaism but does not conditionally depend on it. The expressions "philosophy" and "way of life" of Jews simply must heed the fact that a philosophy and a way of life of a Jew can be something that is entirely non-Judaic and independent of it, without at the same time being non-Jewish. Thank you, Maysara (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The logic doesn't follow Maysara. You are comparing apples to oranges.  Islam does not have the same history that Judaism does vis-a-vis what we consider an ethnic group today.  Most Muslims are not Arabs, precisely because of how Islam has spread across ethnic populations over its history.  For the most part Judaism has not.  This is recognized to varying degrees and to varying ends by both scholars of Judaism and by Jews themselves.  Where do you get the idea that "some Jews practice other faiths" btw?  What exactly do reliable sources say about this?  While I know there are certainly people who consider themselves Jewish and Buddhist (to name one example), that is also true for liberals who associate with other faiths.  In general these types of Modern religionists are small minorities within their faith traditions.  In other words we do not write leads to entries around their religious behavior, even if it is notable enough to mention in the main article.  What most people understand, again outside of those who edit here, is that there are two inclusive ways one can be Jewish -- one is religious and one is ethnic.  Judaism refers to the religion and "Jewish people" or some variant refers to the ethnicity (and whatever cultural aspects it involves).Griswaldo (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have explained before, Wikipedia editors cannot put their own views into articles. Maysara, your suggestion that you are using logic to address this issue is just another way of putting your opinion - the product of your reasoning - into this article.  But the lead is not based on your reasoning or mine, or Jayjg's or anyone else's.  Wikipedia only includes significant views from verifiable sources.  The phrasing from the first sentence has a verifiable source, Encyclopedia Judaica, which is a highly significant, authoritative source on Jewish Studies.  In short, Jayjg is not making a logical claim, he is making an empirical claim.  So there is no "same logic" to apply.  Instead, apply the same criteria.  Are there verifiable and authoritative sources that say that Islam is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of Arabs?  Not to my knowledge.  So applying the exact same criteria as Jayjg, the first sentence of the article on Islam will necessarily be different from the first sentence of this article.


 * You see, Maysara, if you want to help out at Wikipedia you can't just claim to use logic to justify edits. You actually have to do research.


 * Your own statement, about Jews following other faiths, is illogical. If Jews follow other faiths and still consider themselves Jewish, this is because Judaism is not (or not only) a "faith."  (and it is not adequate to say that "Jews" are an ethnic group; as Shaye JD Cohen has shown, Judaism - meaning not just religion but philosophies and ways of life - was essential to the creation of Jewish ethnic identity, and for Jews it still is.  Judaism means many things and is inclusive of Jewish renewal and Humanistic Judaism.  Your edit would serve only to impose a narrow POV about Judaism, and one that is not supported by most sources.  And really, we are not talking about Islam, so we do not need verifiable sources about Islam - what on earth are you thinking?  For the article on Judaism, we need verifiable sources on Judaism, which we have,in abundance. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "I think all Jews would say that a Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer a member of the Jewish nation, is no longer an ethnic Jew." I very much doubt it. My understanding is that, under halakhah, a Jew converted to Christianity is still a Jew. Am I wrong? Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "religion of the Jewish people". Now that's much more like it. The religion of Jews as a collective entity, not just a lot of individuals. That wording makes it clear. Peter jackson (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ו===QUOTES FROM RELIABLE SOURCES:===

"[...] I described the very vigorous Jewish life of the areas settled by immigrants in the big cities in the 1920s and 1930s. I pointed out how much of that life was specifically antagonistic to Jewish religion, to Judaism, while it was positive about some other aspects of Jewish life. This seems strange to us now, but in the 1920s and 1930s one could find, for example, anti-religious Zionists, secular Jewish schools that were anti-religious, Yiddish culturalists, anarchist, socialist, and communist Jewish organizations for different age groups and with varied objectives, all of which could have been described as atheist and anti-Judaist."

"Prior to the Zionist movement and the reestablishment of the State of Israel in which the Jews form a people like any other people in the world, the concept of Jewish peoplehood had become repugnant to most Jews in Central and Western Europe, although in East Europe many non-religious and anti-religious Jews were attracted to the doctrine of “Galut Nationalism” propounded by Zhitlovsky and Dubnow. (p. 17)

It is interesting to note that a significant proportion of Israeli students in an attitude study (11 percent of the religious students surveyed and 34 percent of the non-religious) considered a person a Jew solely on the basis of his feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people. (p. 23)"

User:Slrubenstein The reason i have not attempted to provide sources for what i am arguing is not that such sources do not exist. As i said above, sources can be provided in support of arguments distanced from one another by extreme gaps. Hence my insistence on the role of rationality and logic in pursuing agreement, by means of a committedly objective and balanced public dialogue and deliberation. For, otherwise, how could we ever manage to settle disputes if two contradictory sources are provided in support of two contradictory perspectives?! Hence, the power of reliable sources is a “propositional” one, and not a conclusive or decisive one. However, the source to which you resolve, “Encyclopedia Judaica”, might not be the best one for the reason that it starts from an already Judaic interest and perspective, perhaps also conviction. A more neutral source to the issue would have been something like an Encyclopedia of history, culture or religions (or possibly, but unfortunately currently not, Wikipedia!). An entry of “Judaism” in an encyclopedia of “mythology”, or “folklore” for example, would have been equally biased, but certainly to represent the secular rather than religious perspective of Judaism. So your source is not sufficiently reliable, and only this very conversation we're having now, and in which at least I, am attempting to employ the faculty of reasoning, could help us to come to an agreement.

I was quoting User:Jayjg who said: “The fact that some Jews practice other faiths, or none at all, is irrelevant to that.” My interest in the quote -as my reply should have already shown- has nothing to do with whether Jews do adhere to other religions or not. Further, the example of Arabs-Muslims relation was meant to challenge the logic of User:Jayjg, and not to bring a supporting historical demonstration of a similar situation of the Jews. My former reply shows this in a manner so clear that it could be easily re-represented in mathematical formulae. What is equally so clear is that, the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism, and its relation to the Jewish people, are being ignored, perhaps deliberately and for prejudiced religious reasons. That debate keeps coming up regarding this, should be an indication that the statements in this article need to change, and that even this debate itself, and its details, shall be included in an encyclopedic and referenced manner, in the article itself.

Thank you, Maysara (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maysara, you ask what we do when there are conflicting sources. You propose we rely on your logic, but in fact that violates WP:NOR as i have explained by inserting your own view into the matter.  NPOV already provides us with a good answer to your question: we provide all significant sources, and distinguish different points of view, and distinguish between majority and minority points of view.  If different sources provide different accounts of what Judaism is, or how it is to be classified, we need an introduction that introduces the article by being inclusive of the major views.  It is as simple as this.


 * Yet you keep pushing a particular point of view, which you now name as "secular." Funny, as your secular point of view sounds Christian to me.  but at least you have now admitted you are pushing a point of view.  Now, I support Encyclopedia Judaica because it is an authoritative source on things Jewish.  I had no idea it is specifically "religious" and I am not sure why you think it pushes a religious point of view.  I didn't think it was any more religious than the other Jewish views you provide, from Glazer and Patai.


 * As to privileging how Jews view Judaism, well, I can only admit that I would take the same approach in any other article. The colonizing West, masquerading in what you call "secular" knowledge, has a long history of creating knowledges about its subjugated Others, and there is a considerable amount of research in the past thirty or forty years by serious academics who challenge this sugjugating knowledge - Edward Said's Orientalism is a classic text and while I think it is flawed it is nevertheless making an important point which, as I have said, a great many scholars in the humanities and social sciences now recognize.  I think that Peter Jackson was raising this issue when he brought up recent work that suggests that Hinduism as a "religion" is a Western (and very much Christian, even when it parades as "secular") invention, and that whatever native peoples of India believed in and practiced before British colonialism that might be thought of as Hinduism is not well-served by any word ending with "ism."


 * So if you insist on bringing in "secular" points of view I would insist that we also take into account cutting-edge work in post-colonial theory and other attempts to decolonize Western knowledges. One example of this is favoring the names by which people call themselves rather than the racist names imposed by their colonizers.  I personally think it is a disgrace that we have an article on "bushmen" that says anything other than it is the racist term created by white colonizers.  We do have articles on the !Kung and Khoisan, which are of course the terms these people use for themselves.  We now have good articles on the Yupik and Inuit, and I hope sometime soon we will be able to turn that horrible article on the Eskimo into a redirector disambiguation page.  Surely, we do not begin the article on France with German or English stereotypes of the French, or begin the article on Germany with English or french stereotypes of the Germans. In fact, although our articles begin with the word "France" and "Germany," respectively (words that as far as i know Germans and French do not find offensive), the next words in the article are the English translation of the coutnry's own name for itself, followed by the name in the national language.


 * !Kung and Inuit peoples are beginning to represent themselves and produce knowledge about themselves and while I certainly would not delete information that is culled from classic ethnographies or histories, I certainly would privilege !Kung and Inuit views of themselves in the articles on these people. This is the approach that anthropologists, the experts on human cultural variation, take, and it seems a reasonable approach for us to take.


 * For what it is worth, I would take the same view with the peoples/ideologies that dominated the Jews for most of the past 1700 years, Christianity and Islam. Now, many Jews do not consider Christianity monotheistic.  But the first line of our article states that it is a monotheistic religion, and the first source provided is The Catholic Encyclopedia and you know what?  You don't see me objecting to that, do you?  No, my stance is consistant: I think it is fitting that the first view of Christianity be one that Christians agree to.  The first source provided for the Islam article is a "Compendium of Muslim Sources" so I infer that it represents a Muslim view or views.  And again, I have never commented negatively on that at the Islam web-page.  The article on Capitalism certainly privileges how capitalists view capitalism (as opposed to the equivalent of "secular" i.e. unbelieving views for example, Marx's view - his view is in the article but is not included in the lead).  It is aenough to make you wonder if some Wikipedias have a double standard when it comes to Jews.  I do not think there is a double standard, but when it comes to the inclusion of different views in an article there is just no rule or precedent for excluding a people's view of their own culture or a nation's own view of its national religion.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting ideas there, but let me just add one point. The "colonialist" ideas have often been adopted by the "victims" themselves. How do you tell what they "really" believe & what's been "imposed" on them? What would such a distinction mean? Is the "real" name for Judaism Hebraism? (The term Khoisan, by the way, is itself a "colonialist invention". The Bushmen call themselves San, the Hottentots call themselves Khoikhoin, & Westerners invented this term to combine them.)


 * How do you tell what a group's view of itself is? If you go to thta group's own sources, all you find is sources from particular members or subgroups of that group. How do you tell whether their views would be accepted by the group as a whole? Answer, according to Wikipedia: you look at "reliable" 3rd-party sources, i.e. outsiders. Can you see any way round that? Peter jackson (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good and valid points. The only place where we differ is in the last line.  I consider significant and reliable third party sources to be worth including in an article in addition to indigenous self-representation, but not in place of it.  In this particular case, I think there are reliable third-party sources that point out that Jews began thinking of Judaism as a religion - or really the larger point, began thinking of national and religious identity as differentiated - after Napolean convened the Great Sanhedrin precisely to ask the Jewish leaders in France whether Jews were a nation or a religion.  Answering "religion" was a condition for political equality in France.  So I do agree with your larger point that the historical and political context, which is sometimes excluded from indigenous accounts of their own identity, are important and should be included in any article.  In this specific case it is easy to find examples of Jewish leaders self-consciously struggling with these categories, all of which may be foreign to prior Jewish self-conception.  I do not think it would be hard to find independent third-party sources on napolean, the Great Sanhedrin, and how it (and similar changes occuring in Europe) lead European Jews to begin thinking of national (or ethnic) and religious identity as separate and opposing.


 * But my point all along (since archive 15) has been that there are some Jews for whom Judaism is only a religion, some who rejected religion and understand Jewishness solely in terms of nationality, some who view Judaism as both, and some who suggest it is neither, and that this article should include all views from reliable sources. I am not thrilled by the first sentence but it has the virtue of being inclusive.  In short, I have no objection to saying Judaism is a religion, I object to people who wish the article to say Judaism is only a religion, as that pushes one point of view.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside I note that there are plenty of cases where indigenous people are very self-consciously struggling with the fact that the terms of their own self-representation and identity have been influenced or shaped by colonialism. I think that this is consistent with Said's argument; he was not arguing that there is some pure Arab identity of culture outside of colonialism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk


 * @Maysara, I neglected to comment on this statement of yours: "What is equally so clear is that, the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism, and its relation to the Jewish people, are being ignored, perhaps deliberately and for prejudiced religious reasons." I agree with your first clause 100%; I think the article ought to address the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism.  I do not believe it is being ignored for religious reasons ... well, there may be some editors here who reject it for religious reasons, but my point, above, is that there are secular interests that easily lead people to ignore these problems, too.  Anyway, I would fully support a section on the difficulties.  Right now I think the closest we come to this is in note 53.


 * Here are some Jewish sources that indicate an uncertainty or lack of comfort with making religion - or - ethnicity either/or questions:


 * Critical (i.e. not religious) historian Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties University of California Press.
 * But Ioudaismos, the ancestor of our English word Judaism, means more than just religion. (7-8)
 * "...in this first ocurence of the term, Ioudaismos has not yet be reduced to designation of a religion. It means rather "the aggregate of all those characteristics that makes Judaeans Judaean (or Jews Jewish)." Among thse charactertistics, to be sure, are practices and beliefs that we would today call "religious" but these practices and beliefs are not the sole content of the term. (105-106)


 * Orthodox Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik 1983 [1944] Halakhic Man JPS:
 * Halakhic man reflects two opposing selves; two disparate images are embodied within his soul and spirit. On the one hand he is as far removed from homo religiosus as east is from west and identical, in many respects, to prosaic, cognitive man; on the other hand he is a man of God, possessor of an ontological approach that is devoted to God and of a wold view saturated with the radiance of the Divine Presense. For this reason it is difficult to analyze halakhic man's religious conscousness by applying the terms and traits that descriptive psychology and modern philosophy of religion have used to characterize the religious personality ... The image that halakhic man presents is singular, even strange. he is of a type that is unfamiliar to students of religion . (3)


 * Orthodox Rabbi Emmanual Rackman prefers to define Judaism as "a legal order rather than a religion or faith" (56)


 * Historian Gilbert Rosenthal 1974 Four Paths to one God Bloch Publishing Company, refering to Solomon Schechter, one of the founders of Conservative Judaism
 * What is Judaism? Is it a religion?  An ethnic entity?  a culture? a civilization?  Conservative Judaism has a good deal to say about this .... While Schechter conceded that a definition of Judaism is no less perplexing than a definition of God, he sharply criticized the effor of Geiger and the Reformers to reduce Judaism to the status of merely a religious sect,stripped of all national content. (172)


 * Conservative/reconstructionist Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan 1934 Judaism as a Civilization JPS:
 * To begin with, we have to analyze the very notion of difference To be different may mean to be both other and unlike, or to be other only. Otherness is difference in entity, unlikeness is difference in quality. Unlikelness presupposes otherness, but otherness is compatible with either likeness or unlikeness. Otherness may therefore be considered primary, and unlikeness only secondary. hence, when Jewish life is endangered and we try to conserve it, we necessarily try to conserve that which differentiates it from non-Jewish life. but here a fallicy insinuates itself. We make the mistake of believing that what we chiefly try to conserve is that wherein Jewish life is unlike non-Jewish life, or what may be termed as differential. We concentrate on the religious aspect of Jewish life, because it is that aspect which is most conspicuously most unlike, and because we assume it to be the least troublesom to justify. But the truth of the matter is that what is at stake in our day is the very maintenance of Jewish life as a distinct society entity. Its very otherness is in jeopardy. .... The Jew's religion is but one element in his life that is challenged by the present environment. it is a mistake, therefore, to conceive the task of conserving jewish life as essentially a task of saving the Jew's religion .... the task before the Jew is to save the otherness of Jewish life; the element of unlikeness will take care of itself .... Judaism as otherness is thus something far more comprehensive than Jewish religion. it contains the nexus of a history, literature, language, social organization, folk sanctions, standards of conduct, social and spiritual ideals, esthetic values, which in their totality form a civilization. 177-178


 * Would these help contribute to an account of "the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism, and its relation to the Jewish people, are being ignored?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maysara, I'm not sure why you brought those quotes above; they have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Judaism is the religion of the Jews. This has been shown both by logic, and by reliable sources; what else do you need? Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again
Sectioned off from the above


 * Once again, different things are getting confused. Let me try again to distinguish a few things.


 * "Judaism is the religion of the Jews". Unclear/misleading. It's not the religion of all Jews as individuals, it's the religion of the Jews as a collective entity, the Jewish people.
 * Judaism, as a word, was invented precisely for the purpose of referring to the Jewish religion, & that's what this article is supposed to be about. Jewishness is something broader, & discussions about religion &/or ethnicity belong in a separate article on that.
 * Judaism is an ethnic religion. That makes it in some sense coextensive with or even identical with the ethnic group. This requires very careful study & conceptual analysis, which I'll leave to you specialists. (The same arises even with ethnoic subdivisions of universal religions, like the Church of England.)


 * Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * These are very constructive points:
 * I agree that changing the first sentence to read " ... of the Jewish People" (or nation) would be an improvement. Is there anyone who objects?  Unless there is significant objection, I will make the change.
 * I agree with what you say about "Judaism," although I would add that Judaism also means "Jewishness," at least for many Jews. Isn't this what "יהדות" and "ייִדישקייט" mean?  And aren't these the words for "Judaism" in the languages of Jews?  Be that as it may, if your point is that you agree with Maysara, that "this debate itself [concerning the meaning of "Judaism" and how it was invented], and its details, shall be included in an encyclopedic and referenced manner, in the article itself," well, I agree also.  But who can write such a section?  We can start a sub-page, and I think the quotes provided here could provide raw material, but we need valid secondary sources.  Can you help with this?
 * Wikipedia has an article on Ethnic religion and some time ago I argued that we should link the word "religion," in the hatnote and in the lead, to this article. I was argued down but if you wish to reopen the argument I am all for it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough coffee to be agreeable this morning.
 * I think "nation" is the better choice over "people"; as other "people" can convert to Judaism, "peoples" would be the technically more correct but then also move further from the sense of "nation."
 * Agreed on scope; Jewish religious life is a narrower subject than Jewish life (including secular aspects) in general.
 * I see no impediment to linking to Ethnic religion. Observations that not all Jews are biological (if you will) or theologically recognized (diversity of sects) Jews, for example, don't alter the fundamental unity of ethnic group and religion.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with change to "religion of the Jewish people". Debresser (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the change but capitalized the P in People following standard English ussage. If we keep small p, then the phrase "Jewish people" simply means an aggregate of people who happen to be Jewish. This is synonymous with "Jews" and does nothing then to address the concerns others raised. If the idea is, as Peter Jackson suggested, to signify the collective, P in people should be captialized, just as it is for the American People, or the Arab people, or any other nation. ebresser doesn't like this and has reverted me twice without giving any easonsm, I wonder what possible reason he could have for reverting an editor twice with not explanation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a more "radiating" definition, as opposed to a "closed circle," would be a nicer first sentence. The "religion of the Jewish people," is naturally OK, but having a full-stop period makes it too confining and circular (i.e. "Judaism" = "Jews" = "Judaism"). What strikes me as a more expansive definition would be something like one from a leading unabridged dictionary:


 * Judaism is the monotheistic religion of the Jews, having its ethical, ceremonial, and legal foundation in the precepts of the Old Testament and in the teachings and commentaries of the rabbis as found chiefly in the Talmud.


 * That kind of fuller definition radiates outward to the rest of the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Greatly improved over "Judaism is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews", I think.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 22:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not knock Wikiwatcher's idea of a "radiating" definition, but I am not thrilld with the one he provides, in part because it implies that the Jewish people might have some non-monotheistic religion called something else. I also squarely reject "Old Testament" as a Christian concept in an article on Judaism. The lead we have now comes from a verifiable source, and is inclusive of many different views Jewish movements and authorities have of Judaism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Some citable definitions:

A few more published definitions all aimed toward general readers:
 * Judaism is the monotheistic religion of the Jews having its spiritual and ethical principles embodied chiefly in the Torah and in the Talmud.
 * The monotheistic religion of the Jews, tracing its origins to Abraham and having its spiritual and ethical principles embodied chiefly in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud.
 * The religion of the Israelites of the Bible and of the Jews of today, based on the teachings of the Torah. Judaism involves the belief in one God, whose Chosen People are the Jews. Abraham is considered the founder of Judaism, although Moses, who delivered the laws of God to the Israelites, is also an important figure.

Some other definitions, such as from general encyclopedias, are much longer multi-sentence lead-styles, since they have the freedom to write more text, such as Columbia's: Or the category-type definitions:
 * The religious beliefs and practices of the Jews. One of the three great monotheistic world religions, Judaism began as the faith of the ancient Hebrews, and its sacred text is the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Torah. Fundamental to Judaism is the belief that the people of Israel are God's chosen people, who must serve as a light for other nations. . . . (continues)
 * i.e. "religious," "cultural," "spiritual," "ethnic," etc.

I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have the best of all these in the lead. Whichever ones are used, even if partially, can have it's own source, which is required in any case. But we aren't supposed to create our own definitions of anything. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, I think most of these are already in the introduction - I just do not see a reason to cram them all into the first sentence. But I do want to pick up on one thing you raise: monotheism.  I agree with you about the importance of monotheism, and my problem is not with the lead but the body of the article.  Right now, monotheism is down as one among a number of other principles of faith.  I want to know what you think about dividing this section.  I think there is no doubt about the centrality of monotheism in Judaism and it is worth a section of its own.  "Creds," "doctrines," and "principles or articles of faith" however as the article already says are in fact a bit controversial in Judaism and have a less clear history.  So I think we should have one section on creed/dogma/doctrine, that explains why Judaism is a non-creedal religion and the history of attempts to establish agreed-on beliefs, and an independent section just on monotheism.  What do you think? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to pick your topic first: "Definition," "lead," or "body?" If it's anything but "definition," you should start a new discussion section. BTW, I didn't say "monotheism was important" to the definition. What you're interpreting from the published quotes is that it's "fundamental" to the definition, not merely "important." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In an article about Judaism, one should probably use Tanakh rather than Old Testament. Though the contents are essentially identical, the Tanakh is the version Judaism uses. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikiwatcher, I guess, I'd say that our article does not need and should not have a definision of Judaism - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and given the many different of definitions (and thanks for providing a sample) I think picking one is arbitrary and any attempt to come up with one of our own would violate SYNTH. You may disagree with me, but please don't take this personally.  I have edited a great many articles and I have always opposed opening with a definition (I was once involved in a very lengthy debate at the capitalism article over just this).  I think the best we can do is a description of Judaism and the vaguer and more inclusive, the better.  We currently have one from the world's #1 tertiary source on Judaism and I am content with that.  Here is what I do advocate: writing a great article based on the best secondary sources (which we have not yet finished doing) and then making sure we have an introduction to the article that does just that: introduces the article.  I think the contents of the introduction to any article should be determined by the body of that article, because the purpose of the introduction is to introduce the article.  Now, I will follow your advice, which I appreciate and consider quite reasonable.


 * Where a word or term has been defined by numerous reliable sources, there is every reason to include their definitions, with cites. Where definitions are given in different ways, we can simply add those differing definitions. This isn't like writing about a person or event, for instance, but a clearly defined noun. It is defined, has been defined, and we should also include a definition, just not our own. This is Wikipedia, not a magazine. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tanakh is not identical to Old Testament. It's identical to Protestant Old Testament. Catholic Old Testament includes more. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"People" v "people"
The lower case people is the most common here and until Slrubenstein made the change he had made everyone on the talk page, including Slrubenstein, had been using "Jewish people" to discuss this idea and had quoted from texts also using "Jewish people". "Nation" is not a good alternative because it is not as inclusive and it relies on a meaning of the term that is more technical than how it is commonly used. Let's not edit war over this please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided an explanation. And then I was reverted, without anyone providing the courtesy of an explanation (let alone a response to my explanation).  What is the difference between "Jewish people" and "Jews?"  They mean the same thing so there is no point of making a change.  The point of making a change was to refer to an abstract collective rather than an aggregate of individuals and that is what People with a capital P refers to.  You are right you should not edit war over an obvious point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are? If I change a capital to a normal letter, what is there to explain? Should I bring you textbooks, quotes? You made a mistake and were reverted. Get used to it, man! The sheer arrogance of your perceived infallibility! Debresser (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So, it is arrogant when I make a change and provide an explanation on the talk page, but it is not arogant when you make a change, and refuse to provide an explanation on the talk page? Interesting. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that you were the only one on this talk page to use a capital. All others, without exclusion, didn't. You do your homework before you make any edits, instead of screaming out loud when we fix your mistakes. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Actually I'd be interested in discussing why "nation" does not work as well. While "nation" has as an attribute the notion of inhabited territory, as opposed to "people" which does not, I rather think "nation" enhances the relationship to biblical and modern Israel and underscores the (to my mind, unique) diasporal nature of Jewish population world-wide. (That said, "people" does look to be the preferred usage in scholarship.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 21:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you see on this very same talk page, you could hardly call Jews a nation. "Nation" implies unity, "people" implies plurality. "People" seems somewhat more appropriate then. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Jewish nation" was used before the nation-state system began to develop - in other words during and before the Roman-Hellenistic periods. The term "Jewish people" (no caps) was used by countries such as Russia and E. Europe who had both political and cultural barriers which prevented assimilation. So it seems the usages all have a place in the timeline, but should be explained within the text as to why it was referred to that way at that time period. Books such as A History of the Jewish people and A Short History of the Jewish People: From Legendary Times to Modern Statehood explain some of that. But overall the topics of caps or "nation" strike me as a distraction from real issues to improving the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism: not just your typical doctrine
I propose a separate section on monotheism. Currently, it is mentioned in the section on doctrines and principles of faith, so basically I am suggesting that it does not belong in that section. I have two reasons. First, virtually all secondary sources on what Judaism is stress the centrality of monotheism. Second, the section on doctrines and principles of faith make it clear that Jews and "Judaism" itself have at best ambivalent feelings about doctrine; that Judaism is a non-creedal religion; that Rambam's 13 principles of faith - now very popular - nevertheless were controversial. I do not oppose this section, in fact, i think it is important to have a section explaining why Judaism is non-creedal and has no dogmas, and why the thirteen principles of faith were so controversial for some time and what their status is today. But monotheism stands apart from any of those debates. For Jews, it is not a doctrine or principle of faith. There is no commandment in the Torah that says "Believe in God." Even the Ten Commandments has no commandment to believe in God (which is why I think that the word "faith" means something very different for Jews than it does for Christians), it simply commands Jews not to worship any other gods. But the existence of God is taken for granted, it is a sine qua non. The question facing Israel, from Abraham to Moses to Micah, is what kind of relationship to have with God. There is a fair amount of secondary literature on the meaning of monotheism in Judaism, currently not reflectred in the article. I think monotheism should have its own section, where that literature can be applied.Monotheism definitely should not be presented as one doctrine among others, or one principle of faith among others. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already an article on monotheism, so your suggestions should be started there first. My own impression of just the comments above, however, is that you immediately state a number of contradictions from your own opinions and private beliefs. For example, in one sentence you acknowledge that Judaism "stresses the centrality of monotheism," and follow it with a comment that "Judaism itself is at best ambivalent" about it. At best? You also call it a "doctrine," which is a demeaning definition of "belief," and thereby go on to proclaim it as "controversial." Controversial? And all of that in just two sentences! I don't think, with all the writings describing and defining Judaism, it is necessary for any of us editors to chip away at the underpinnings or validity of a religion or its beliefs. And the irony in all this, is that a citation describing Judaism, by one of the world's leading contemporary religion scholars, Huston Smith, was instantly deleted by you without any rationale. Is there a pattern here? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)



The above appear to be commandments to "Believe in God", and that the God of Judaism recognized other Gods, which would dis-spell monotheism altogether. Victor9876 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * God (monotheistic Judaism) versus gods (other, not the one and true God, "gods"). The mention of the worship of gods other than God does not change the monotheism of Judaism. In fact, what you quote rather convincingly underscores the whole "one God" aspect.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting primary cites, relevant to the definition of Judaism itself, but not necessarily was He only the "God of Judaism." But there were, and still are, polytheists. Ancient Egypt was polytheistic, as was ancient Greece. It was the very denial of polytheism (i.e. sun gods, god of thunder, love, etc.), and the acceptance of only one God, that created this first monotheistic religion. The link to Huston Smith's book, with his chapter on Judaism, summarizes this well. I'm not fond of giving personal viewpoints, even when cornered, and for us to interpret the Bible seems to be outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your quotes just support my points. It sounds like you agree with me. You seem to want to suggest that there is some contradiction in what i wrote but you aren't making sense, what is inconsistent? I m just addressing the organization of the article, All the claims I made are already in the articlel, with citations, if you really do not know the authoritative citations and want to find them they are right there. I just think they are poorly organized. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not contradictions, the god of the Torah (where these quotes are taken from), is a god for Judaism only, not withstanding Wikiwatcher1's synthesis above. In fact Exodus 34:11-14 commands the destruction of all other gods and their alters or religious artifacts and is tantamount to warring, since god mentions his name is Jealous, "Who is a jealous God" as he says (through a human writer). I'm sure the Council of Trent had a problem with that and influenced their decision to deify Jesus as well. Just my thoughts. Victor9876 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Jesus the "Son of God"? If so, wasn't it the same God, and the same one accepted by Islam? If "yes," then why write that He "is a god for Judaism only?" If you meant to say "was" instead of "is," fine, since we all know that timelines in history are significant. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, he was not the son of god. The new testament makes that claim, but the science is not aligned with it, although faith by Christians is. Nor was he the Messiah, as he claimed to be the "son of Man" and other prophesies that never came through according to the book of Psalms and others. I believe the writers of Jesus as deity, considered him the "Suffering Servant" of biblical text, and somehow along the history of the writings, he became to the Christians what they needed him to become. Victor9876 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I take it you'd like this monotheism to be a subsection under "Religious doctrines", the first section? That section is long and unwieldy and could certainly be reorganised. Surely all that needs to be said here is that Judaism is a monotheistic religion - what it might have been 3 thousand years ago is a little irrelevant. (My own personal interest is in the history of religion, and I know how complicated the subject is - far more than the discussion here begins to explore).PiCo (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, not being religious myself, I would prefer it all to go away. However, as you mention, thousands of years of indoctrination limits that possibility for awhile. As to being irrelevant don't mis-understand me, I think all religions are relevant, especially today with all the tensions in the world. As to the article, your subsection observation would be a good idea. Victor9876 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've divided the first section, Religious Doctrines, into two subsections, with the aim of making it easier to decide what they might lack or even have too much of. The first section, Defining Character, seems to be largely about monotheism, but it meanders and it says some very strange things (like, "Judaism is generally considered monotheistic..." Generally considered? You know someone who thinks otherwise?) I believe the commonest definition of Jewish belief in God is "ethical monotheism," meaning that God is single, universal, and concerned about human behaviour. Not terribly different from Islam's god of course, but I didn't invent it. And this single and oddly half-hearted definition of Judaism as monotheistic is as far as the subsection goes. It might consider mentioning several other characteristics associated with the Jewish God, such as transcendence, omnipotence, and immanence, and also creation, revelation, and election. In short, the section, and the whole article, is too heavy on the easy stuff (history), and too light on the hard stuff (theology).


 * By the way, we need to consider what audience the article is aimed at. Not, I think, theology students - they don't come to Wikipedia in search of information. The target audience in my view is an ordinary individual without much background in matters of religion and theology, who comes here for basic information: what is Judaism, what does it teach. PiCo (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your suggestions, but I would personally reconsider the priority of how the article should be improved. As it is now 118KB, it is far over the recommended size. It also contains a lot of what I have called "esoterica," — enough to get some theology students to change their major no doubt ;) — and plenty of personal essays, such as the section,"Jewish religious movements,", all OR, with no cites. So my first thought would be to shorten the article by a) condensing uncited sections to their essence; b) simplifying the text to minimize jargon and improve readability (see Huston Smith example earlier;) c) condense sections (especially overly scholarly or esoteric material) by adding a hatnote to the main article (i.e. hemeneutics,) and d) agree that future OR should be prevented where possible and complete cites used for most descriptions (i.e. footnotes 77 - 84 are theocratic texts without page references, making them meaningless.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we could start with that section, "Jewish Religious Movements". There's a separate article on the subject, so the section here can be very sketchy, just enough to alert the reader that Judaism isn't monolithic. Surely there are decent sources for this. Would you like to have a go at it? Maybe cut it down to the 3 major divisions.PiCo (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. But maybe we should let these ideas simmer a bit to get other input first. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) PiCo, you stated "I believe the commonest definition of Jewish belief in God is "ethical monotheism," meaning that God is single, universal, and concerned about human behaviour." Then later you mention, "There's a separate article on the subject, so the section here can be very sketchy, just enough to alert the reader that Judaism isn't monolithic." As to the first statement, what does "ethical monotheism" mean per definition, as your descriptions are not really related to ethics. Then in the second statement, you mention alerting the reader that Judaism isn't monotheistic. These thesis' are in contrast with each each other. Can you give a brief synopsis of how the two can be merged? Victor9876 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Without direct citations supporting such viewpoints, they wouldn't be in the article (or shouldn't be.) So it seems that OR religion discussions aren't that useful on a talk page. They are descriptive statements, including a definition, that an editor would need to support with sources. Otherwise, there is between a 99% to 100% chance of heated debate ensuing with no benefit to the article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Victor9876, the definition of Judaism as "ethical monotheism" comes from a book called the Blackwell Companion to Judaism - the "singular and universal" part relates to monotheism, and the "concerned with humanity" to ethical behaviour. I've put this into the first sentence of the first section (immediately after the lead), and the book is here. (The section defining Judaism begins on page 3). And I didn't say that Judaism is not monotheistic, I said it's not monolithic - I was meaning that we should indicate that various branches of Judaism exist.PiCo (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two different debates here that are getting muddled. The first is, was Israelite religion monotheistic or henotheistic? This is a legitimate argument and there are scholars on both sides, but many - and this article cites two major ones - say that monothesism emerges only during or after the first Exile. But all sources agree that Judaism (meaning the religion that developed during the Second Temple period and was consolidated during the Rabbinic periods) was and remains monotheistic. The second debate - and this is the point I was making above - is that during this formative period monotheism was not for Jews a matter of doctrine or creed. There is never any doubt that God exists, and Jews are never commanded to believe that God exists. The existence of God is literally beyond question. I have heard many non-Jews (Christians or atheists) talk of faith in God as believing that God exists. But this is not what faith means for Jews. As the two quotes Victor9876 provides above show, the issue in Judaism is whether Jews will be faithful i.e. loyal in the sense that a wife is loyal to her husband and doesn't cheat. A wife who cheats on her husband is not suggesting that her husband does not exist, she is only suggesting that she does not love him or is promiscuous with her affections. Similarly, Judaism never suggests that Israel would think that God doesn't exist. The question is not whether Jews believe God exists or not. The existence of God is assumed. The question is, given a choice of objects to worship, including the choice of worshiping many objects, will Jews worship only one God? That is what the quotes above assert. And this is why I think that the topic of "monotheism" should be treated apart from a discussion of creed and doctrine. For Judaism, monotheism is about fidelity, not belief. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is well-put, Slrubenstein. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A subtle distinction, but one that is basically correct, I think. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well put. I agree that this merits a subsection to itself - maybe combined with the concept of Israel as a community, the equivalent of the Church or the Umma? PiCo (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that Jewish monotheism is not - or at least, in the Hebrew Bible and in the Talmud, the formative texts of Judaism - a doctrine, creed, dogma, or principle of faith. "Doctrine," "creed," "dogma," "faith" are words Jewish philosophers used when explicitly speaking to a Jewish audience that had been influenced by non-Jewish culture, or speaking directly to non-Jews.  But in the Hebrew Bible and Talmud, the existence of God simply is not an issue, no one is commanded to believe in God (not even in the ten commandments) and there are no arguments for God's existence.  It is simply assumed that God exists, just like it is assumed that oxen, the sun, and people exist.  What is commanded is that Jews love and worship God and be faithful to God i.e. exclusive in their love.
 * PiCo is raising a second point, which is that the covenant is between God and the People or Nation of Israel. This includes individuals, and it includes all future members of the nation of Israel, but it is a collective relationship.  So yes, if we are to have a section on God and monotheism (as a core part of Judaism) maybe we should have a section on "Israel" (as a nation) as a core part of Judaism.  I have actually given this a lot of thought over the past few days.  I think it is important but I am not sure it merits a whole section.  I think as long as we make clear in the introduction that the covenant is between God and the People (or people) of Israel, or the Jewish people collectively, we do not have to say more. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to tweak the paragraph PiCo has been working on, to reflect the recent discussion (involving Debresser, Vecrumba, and Bus stop). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I don't want to be a stickler here but I would like to point out that you are now contradicting yourself rather drastically from a position you argued vehemently only a month ago. If Judaism assumes monotheism then Humanistic Judaism is not Judaism properly speaking.  I personally have little problem with what you wrote just above, but as you know I've had many problems with your former argument about how we should treat Judaism in the first sentence of the lead.  You can't have it both ways.  Perhaps you meant "religious Judaism"?  I would also like to point out that while I agree with the current comment for the most part Judaism has clearly, at many times of its history struggled with the existence of God.  There is evidence of this from both Kohelet and Job as well as at during times of persecution, most prominently the Holocaust.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There were 5 official reference book definitions given above within "Once Again" section. Whatever new creative definition editors come up with must be verified by a reliable source, not by us. Why don't we simply pick a RS definition and move on? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources
There seems to be an overuse of primary sources, where a hatnote should be used. For instance, the lengthy primary material by Maimonodes and R. Ishmael should be, if permitted, included in those articles, not here. It's ironic, I would hope, that a day after I suggested trimming the article down to size by removing such bloat, an editor felt the need to do the exact opposite. Nor has the editor made any attempt to contribute to those primary sources. I suggest that the original editor move the material to the primary source's article, and a hatnote added in this article. Yea or nay? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Revising "Jewish Religious Movements" section
A few days ago Wikiwatcher1 and I were discussing revising the section on Jewish religious movements, in the direction of making it briefer, less esoteric, and more user-friendly. I've been bold and cut it back substantially. I've tried not to change anything (although I've redefined rebbe as "teacher" instead of "leader" I think this is more accurate), and readers can always find further information in the wikilinked articles. Please look and comment. PiCo (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better, but I honestly think that with "main" articles for each topic, and with almost no cites, that it could be cut down by another half with no harm. Maybe a paragraph per section, well summarized, and with the hatnote, would help. I can try one if you want. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it.PiCo (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not object to pruning this section - PiCo and Wikiwather are right that there is a lot that can go. But I would not have as a goal one or two paragraphs each.  Wikipedia is not paper and this section should be as long as it should be.  The fact is, each movement has a different view of what Judaism is.  Explaining this view and how they came to hold it would add a lot to an article on "Judaism."  In other words, we should be discussing what kinds of content should be in this section.  The result would be a lot of cutting, but adding as well.


 * The article is long; it seems to me that logical cuts would be the second on Jewish demographics, that CLEARLY belongs in the "Jews" article, and the section on history, that belongs in the "history" section. What we currently have is not really a history of Judaism but a history of the Jewish people and if we are to have a history section, this is not what it should look like.  If we merged Jewish demographics to the Jews article and history to the Jewish history article we would achieve significant cuts.  Then we could add to the section on Jewish movements information that is missing but that is precisely what belongs in this article: how they understand "Judaism." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a piece to the top of the section, identifying all these movements as strands of rabbinic Judaism - which, frankly, was something I hadn't known till I looked up the article. It looks like a good article, and I thought the things it had to say really needed to be said again here to put these movements in historical/intellectual context. I've also made a few more edits to shorten the entries for some of the movements - what I'm trying to do is deliver the essence of what they stand for.


 * Slrubenstein, you say that the entries should describe the view of each movement on what Judaism is. That sounds sensible, but unfortunately I don't know anything about this - all I'm doing is editing what's there, not really looking up new material. If you know these things, go ahead and add them.


 * As for your second para, I'm not happy myself about the history section and I agree that this article veers off into discussions of Jews instead of Judaism. Why don't you have a try at editing it the way you want? PiCo (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Structure: religious movements and history
I think that the section, History, should be moved to come before the section Jewish Religious Movements. Above, Maysara wrote:
 * What is equally so clear is that, the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism, and its relation to the Jewish people, are being ignored, perhaps deliberately and for prejudiced religious reasons. That debate keeps coming up regarding this, should be an indication that the statements in this article need to change, and that even this debate itself, and its details, shall be included in an encyclopedic and referenced manner, in the article itself. Thank you, Maysara (talk)  14:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think she makes a good point. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should have source based articles and every major work on Jewish history I know of talks about how Judaism, its content and form but more fundamentally what people meant by the word, has changed a good deal over time, and a good history section would document that. The time of the Haskala as a time of great ferment (or at least, the ferment is especially well-documented and thus given a lot of attention by historians). The modern movements of Judaism, which developed in the 19th century, were influenced by andin many ways reactions to debates Jews (and non-Jews) were having about Judaism into the middle of the 19th century. In other words, modern Jewish Movements begin where the history section properly ends. This is one big story, but in the current article the story is broken in two and its order reversed. If we put the history section first, we can tell a story about Judaism that is punctuated by moments when Jews had conflicting views of Judaism. It would then naturally follow to have a section on modern Jewish Movements, each of which refers selectively to that history, and each of which proposes a different view of "Judaism." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, I can say that I'm certainly not bringing any religious prejudice to the article. I am, however, bringing a good deal of plain old-fashioned ignorance. For that reason I haven't made any edits of substance - or I don't think I have. What I've done is try to cut down the details to reveal the essence of what's already written in the article. That said, I do agree that we need sources for just about everything we write. And, yes, the "history" has to be a history of Judaism, not of the Jewish people. The problem is (for me), where does that start, and what goes in? Personally I'm inclined to drop all that stuff that just rehashes the Bible story - let's just take that as common knowledge. Does anyone want to comment on that idea - that we delete the summary of what everyone i the Bible did, from Abraham to I don't know what? PiCo (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I have no problem with anyone trimming unnecessary verbiage. But when it comes to content, why are you switching topics? Are we talkint about Judaism versus Jews, or Biblical versus post-Biblical? I thought we were talking about Judaism versus Jews. In this case, the first thing to do is simply to cut and paste anything bou the Jews that is not about "Judaism" as such into the article Jewish history. As for what is left, how can we make a decision about including Biblical history or not? You just said you agreed that our article should be based on sources. Well, I think the obvious thing is to find major works of Jewish history - more recent is better, and written by people with PhDs in Jewish history ... if we knew that these were the kinds of books assigned in university courses, even better ... and follow what they say. If one historian says Judaism began during period x, and another historian says period y, and another historian period z, well, NPOV demands we include all hree views. I have my own personal answer to your question about whether or not to include the Biblical period, but my answer cannot go into an articl, we have to follow the sources, what sources say about the beginning of Judaism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That (meaning moving anything about Jews instead of Judaism to Jewish history) sounds fine to me. But I think you should be the one to do it - I wouldn't be sure I was removing the right material. PiCo (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sl, you write, "I have no problem with anyone trimming unnecessary verbiage." However, your "super-size" additions of esoterica, such as the entire new section you added with primary sources, "Rabbinic hermeneutics" is over 1,000 words. The article, as confirmed by others, needs a serious liposuction of excess fat, much of which was added by your cut-and-paste binges. Are you willing to walk the walk, or just talk? We should first get this article to a decent size, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Judaism
Having finally noticed the Contents entry on the navigational bar on the left of the screen, I tried it out. In the process, I found a blank Outline of Judaism page. I did give it a start, but it really needs work from someone more knowledgeable than I am. For now, until someone takes over, I will probably be following the Outline of Christianity page as a vague model, with which to organized the Judaism page links. --Coro (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia need that? Debresser (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see th need; th portal provides all the major links. Is this all an "outline" page is or?  Or is it meant for something else? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that some group of wikipedians set up a spot for it, with that name at Portal:Contents/Outline_of_Knowledge. But it must not be universally recognized, as somebody speedy deleted the start of it, before I could do anything substantive though the link to it still exists. It may be that the best approach would be to set that page as a redirect, or perhaps even better, reset the link to whatever the existing portal is. --Coro (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving sections above the Twain section
I understand that it is non-standard to add sections prior to an existing section, but some bug in the Twain section seems to be preventing easy access to any section that is put after the Twain Section.--Coro (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

current vandalism
According to the recent edit history, just aout every other edit has been vandalism. This is ridiculous. I have heightened the page protection for one week. This is usually enough time for anti-Semites and morons to find other targets. If a non-registered user wishes to make a change please post it here and an admin will make it.

I know this seems draconian but we need to send a strong message to vandals. This will not last long. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

datlashim, datlafim etc.
I just read in Haaretz (Nir Hasson, The Orthodox Jews fighting the Judaization of East Jerusalem, June 24, 2010) an interesting categorization of religious Jews with words not yet included in wikipedia, as datlashim and datlashim: "they represent an entire spectrum: religious, datlashim ‏(formerly religious, but usually people for whom religion and tradition are still important to some degree‏), datlafim ‏(sometimes religious‏), “transparent skullcaps” ‏(bareheaded people who describe themselves as religiously observant‏), secular, and those who do not want to specify their position along this continuum.". --Pylambert (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Never heard these words before. I don't think Wikipedia should have an article on any term made up by somebody. In addition, for terms we should use Wiktionary. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I found several occurrences on google, the term is used in English and in French in Israeli-related media, e.g. Shani Rosenfelder, Say What?! The complete Hebrew slang guide to survival in Israel, Jerusalem Post, "Datlash - Hebrew acronym whose initials stand for dati le’she’avar (formerly religious). Usually applies to those who were once identified with the dati-leumi (national religious) sector, not haredi, for whom one would use the term hozer be’she’ela.". And I just added a datlash entry in the wictionary. --Pylambert (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good. That is the right place to take this. Keep up the good work. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These are Hebrew neologisms, so they'd have two strikes against them on English Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

demography proposal
There is a separate article on Jews and the hatnote makes a clear distinction between this article and that article. Shouldn't the section on "demographics" be in that article? Demographics is about Jews, not Judaism Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't. This article deals with the religion of the Jews, the other article deals with the broader spectrum of Jewish identity.  If there are sources being used here for demographics of something other than adherents of the Jewish faith then those sources and the content they are attached to should move.Griswaldo (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But Jews are a race/nation as well as adherants to a religion. If Judaism means religion/philosophy etc, it seems to me that the current democraphy section is not providing a number of people who are observant Jews. You use the word faith which to me sounds odd in relation to Judaism, but be that as it may, this section does not seem to be providing a figure of the number of people who have (or whatever the right word to use is) this "faith." Do you read the section as an ennumeration of people who have the same faith? That is not how I read it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the demographics material here should deal only with adherents/members of movement, not general demographics of Jews. Is that what you were proposing? Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Griswaldo is saying we should say how many Orthodox Jews there are, how many Reform or Liberal Jews there are, how many Conservative, how many Hasidim, and so on - I agree completely. Yes, such figures would be at home in this article. But the demographics section currently does not provide those figures, it provides a population count of Jews, and it seems to me that that contents belongs in the Jews article and not in this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should be talking about the demographics of the Jewish religion. That's all I'm saying.  When you speak of such demographics you speak of adherents.  Having populations statistics in this article which include secular Jews who only identify ethnically is the problem.  Those numbers are fine for the other entry but not this one.Griswaldo (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You wrote up top that "demographics is about Jews, not Judaism." So the first thing you need to do is explain why the definition in the first sentence of the article is somehow incorrect, since it implies that Jews and Judaism are interdependent. If the definition is right, then why try to split it up just for the sake of a single paragraph? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we merge the two articles? I wouldsupport that.  But I leave it to you to make the initial motion.  In the meantime, as long as Wikipedia has two articles, contents should be distributed rationally between them.  I think Griswaldo and I are in agreement.  Apparently Wikiwatcher does not have an opinion on the matter.  What do other people think? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With the multitude of sections and subsections, most having hatnotes to "main articles," it makes little sense to move this one. It's OK to include a summary paragraph or two, as here, with a hatnote link, so there's no logic in doing anything here. A better bet is to prune the Hermeneutics section, for example, and move the material to its relevant article, with a hatnote link. "Demographics" is a broad subject that obviously encompasses this article and the definition, where "hemeneutics" is a sub-sub-topic that is out of place as a section, even without its 1,000 words. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct names for the First and Second Temples
Discussion about the correct names for the First and Second Temples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Temple discussion at ANI
In response to above, please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where you may want to add your views to the ongoing discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Judaism
Under "Origins of Judaism" there was a paragraph saying that "some critical anti-religious, secular scholars" oppose the view that Judaism was divinely inspired - instead believing it originated from older Canaanite mythology, etc.. I deleted "anti-religious, secular", since some religious scholars do accept that origin for Judaism, and I don't see what "anti-religious" is supposed to mean other than implying that the only people who don't believe the Torah's account of its own origin are out to sabotage belief in religion.

There's also the problem that it's considerably more than "some" scholars who hold this view, and that given that consensus, this paragraph should be more than an afterword in the bottom of the section, but I'll leave that to someone else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.18.129 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, "anti-religious, secular" was a recent addition (August 4) by an editor who was only active that day, no edits before or since.Dosbears (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism
I just want to point out that the section 'Islam and Judaism' actually discusses relations between Muslims and Jews, not the religions themselves. It should concentrate on the similarities and differences between the two religions as both are based on monotheism and have common history of prophets that splits after Abrahm/Ibrahim.

E.g. there are differences b/w Muslims and Jews or Muslim countries and Israel, however, Judaism is nearer to Islam than Christianity. Muslim Religious Scholars allow Muslims that if they don't find Muslim Halal Meat, they can use Jewish Halal meat. Similarly I find that the concept of pure and non pure food (Halal and Haram) is similar in Islam and Judaism.

This existing info in this section seems more political than religious and aligned towards Israel on Arab Israel issue. Wikipedia is one of the largest online info-banks now. It should maintain neutrality.

Nasreen Ghori (Pakistan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.120.223 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotect again?
There's enough IP vandalism to this page and the semiprotection it used to have certainly prevented that. I think we should semiprotect this page again, perhaps indefinitely. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Influence on Western Culture
The lead says elements of Judaism have influenced secular Western ethics and civil law, but the source says different.
 * Nor can the Jews claim any special influence on modern economic development
 * the Jews had had no influence on the French Revolution

In fact, a quick read of the source indicates the majority influence was "a strong Jewish participation throughout the socialistic movement" - including the writings of Karl Marx. Other than that, most influences are either via Christian incorporation of the texts, or as a cultural impact by Jews as individuals but not necessarily Judaism as a faith.--DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure of the cavil. Decidedly the US writers of the DoI were well aware of the Jewish legal and moral traditions, and with the Jewish religion.  .  The Liberty Bell bears an inscription from Leviticus.  Ad infinitum. Collect (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Religious Texts
I believe this section should be divided into two and renamed. In Judaism, there is a HUGE diference between Torah (including the Talmud and commentaries on the either) and works of Jewish Philosophy. Torah and Talmud are sacred texts. Books of philosophy are not sacred. Perhaps one could argue that Jewish philosophy are attempts to explain or justify Judaism. But Torah and Talmud are Judaism. I think we should have one section on Sacred Literature, and another on Jewish Philosophy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how many Talmudists we could have discussing all this for a few weeks? Seriously - we should have relatively brief descriptions of the various works, and bluelink to expanded articles thereon. It is also possible that the section title should be rephrased as "Judaic texts"?  That should also keep the article size down a tad. Collect (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But then why not add poetry, or novels? They are Judaic texts as much as someone's philosophy.  In any event my point is about organization, I am not saying we shouldn't have links to the article on Jewish philosophers.  Why is philosophy classified in the same group as Torah? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose because of the large number of non-observant ethnic (as opposed to religious) Jews? The main place to emphasize the sacred nature of Torah is in the article thereon (which is where I hope people will head). And you surely know the Psalms etc. are, indeed, "Jewish poetry." As long as the general topics in the section are bluelinks, I see no real reason to object to it being fairly inclusive. Collect (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, obviously you missed my point about poetry. But this is neither here nore thare. This is not about being inclusive versus exclusive - you are the one who is raising the question of what to include. I am not arguing that we change what we include at all. I am not talking about exclusion, merely distinction. I am simply proposing that what is lumped together as religious texts be divided into two different sections, because the two kinds of literature are not equally religious or religious in the same way. Surely, we should divide content into sections that make sense? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Each time a dichotomy is made resulting in two sections, each section has grown beyond reason (personal opinion). I would not state that the current article is too short, either.  In order to rein the size in, it is likely that restricting each item to a single sentence or two is the better way to go - and that is unlikely to occur with separate sections for each. Collect (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this suggestion. Where would works of halakha fit? Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a subsection of sacred literature? The thing is, I do not think any work of philosophy was ever widely accepted by Klal Yisroel.  The Shulchan Aruch, on the other hand, was.  I think this is an important distinction.  Maybe we should have three categories (and again i am only talking of ways to slice up the pie not to add to it or change it in another way): Sacred literature (Tanakh and Talmud); widely accepted interprations of Sacred Literature; and then Individual reflections on Judaism.  Something like that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with putting the Talmud in the exact same class as the Torah; their degree of sanctity is clearly not the same. And where would things like the Baraitas fit, the Tosefta, Mekhiltas, Sifra, Sifre, etc.? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My main problem is putting philosophy in the same category. Jewish philosophy is simply not in the same league, not even by degree ... in the missle ages some rabbis even argued against philosophy in general. Now, I value much Jewish philosophy (and why not put tales of the Besht or the Bratslaver Rabbi in the same class?).  But these works are not comparable to literature that could be classified as Wirrten Torah or Oral Torah. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd agree with that; works of Jewish philosophy should not be in the same category as Mishna, Baraita, Gemara, or even halakha. They simply have nowhere near the same level of authority or general acceptance. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * so how would you suggest reorganizing this section? If we want to include "religious text" we should include Shivhei Ha Besht and the poetry of Ibn Gabirol and Judah Ha-Levi ... thse works are as important forms of expression of the Jewish view of and love for God, and ideals about the rightpath in life, as Guide to the Perplexed or A Faith For Moderns.  But we agree that they should be in a section that sets them apart from texts that, as you say, have a high level of authority or general acceptance.  I propose "Core Jewish texts" (Tanach and Talmud, an major commentaris and codifications); "major expresions of Jewish devotion" (poetry and literature" and "Books explaining or defending Judaism" (philsosophy).  Just to get the ball rolling. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Today's edits to the lead
I just reverted a number of edits that were made to the lead today. They consisted of a series of edits by two editors attempting to describe the relationship between modern Judaism and the religion of ancient Israel. The reason I reverted is that these edits look like WP:OR to me and may be too detailed for the lead regardless of their provenance. Keeping in mind that a lead section is supposed to be written in summary style, if you'd like to make changes to the lead similar to the ones I just reverted, please propose your changes here and let's try to get some kind of consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; the edits looked like WP:NOR, and seemed to express a particular POV too. I also removed the slightly earlier edits, which attempted to equate 18th century traditional Judaism with modern Haredi Judaism, and Conservative Judaism with Modern Orthodox Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to equate 18th century traditional Judaism with modern Haredi Judaism; I was trying to show that Modern Orthodox Judaism accepted many of the values of the Haskalah, rather than being a rejection of it. Right now the article implies that "Orthodoxy" was simply opposed to the Haskalah, which is not quite right.  Perhaps you could fix the paragraph in a way that would get the point across better than I did.  Also, the title of that section is a bit off, as the paragraph is as much about the other movements as it is about "Reform Judaism." Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I certainly do want to make sure it's clear that all of these movements, certainly including Haredi Judaism, are new, modern movements.Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are all valid points, but I don't think the way you worded the changes reflected your intent. Let me mull this over, or perhaps you could suggest alternative wording. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry that I didn't word this very well. The way it is phrased now, though, it also sounds like what we're trying to avoid.  An important point is that Orthodoxy supported a lot of the agenda of the Haskalah from the beginning.  The YIVO Encylopedia says: "Yet within two decades not only was peace made with the moderate Haskalah of Mendelssohn and Wessely, but the earliest manifestations of Orthodoxy in Central Europe actually incorporated much of their program." (http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Orthodoxy) Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried fixing this in the article. Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those changes look much better. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Orthodoxy and heterodoxy
The term Orthodox for traditional Jews was used initially only by those Reformers who were opposed to them. There had been text in this article which suggested that an "Orthodox movement" [sic] was formed in reaction to the creation of the Reform movement. This has no historical basis. There was no single body which represented Orthodox Jews, and Orthodox Jews did not accept the term "Orthodox" until later. They were merely those Jews who did not break away to found or join the Reform movement, or later movements (such as Conservative) which subsequently broke away from Reform. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute among historians on this point: what came to be called Orthodoxy broke away to be a separatist community, under S.R. Hirsch, reacting against the rest of the Jewish community's support of Reform in Frankfurt. The wording that you changed didn't claim that an "Orthodox movement was formed" - it said that the "traditionalists reacting against [Reform] became known as Orthodox Jews."  Not that they called themselves Orthodox Jews, but that they came to be known as Orthodox Jews. The same is true for Conservative Judaism, who didn't break off to become a movement, but who were traditionally-minded Jews who came to be known as Conservative Jews.  Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And to quote from the YIVO Encyclopedia: Orthodoxy "is a relatively new phenomenon, a consequence of the challenges posed to tradition by modern ideologies. With the authority of tradition no longer taken as self-evident, it has had to be consciously defended and justified, augmented and amplified. Orthodoxy thus emerged in response to ideologies that challenged tradition and presented themselves as legitimate alternatives." Rgcrgcrgc (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "The rest of the Jewish community's support of Reform"? That's kind of the tail wagging the dog.  Reform broke away, and those who didn't follow them in their break were labeled as "Orthodox".


 * And you need to look into the origins of the Conservative movement. They were Reform Jews who were uncomfortable with the speed at which Reform was moving away from traditional (read: Orthodox) Judaism.  The break in that case came after the "treyfe banquet", when outright non-kosher foods were served.  The reason the movement is called Conservative is that they were conservative relative to Reform.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You might also want to read this section on Neo-Orthodoxy. That's what Rav Hirsch founded.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lisa is correct here; Hirsch founded a specific Orthodox movement in response to Reform in Germany. However, this was a small (although influential) movement, restricted to ten or twenty thousand followers at its peak. The millions of traditional/Orthodox Jews in Poland/Ukraine/Russia/Lithuania/Hungary did not ascribe to Hirsch's ideology either. Even in terms of German rabbis, Moses Sofer had a vastly greater impact on the traditionalists in the east than Hirsch, and it was much more around his ideas that those newly self-identifying as "Orthodox" began to organize themselves. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is, it is anachronistic to call those Jews "Orthodox;" if one must use the word orthodox use it with a small o. And many of those traditional Jews became Conservative, it is not a simple evolution from traditional -> Orthodox. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in America at least some started identifying with the nascent Conservative movement in the early 20th-century. Keep in mind, however, that the original 19th-century Jewish Theological Seminary of America was what would today be typically described as "Modern Orthodox", and it was initially affiliated with the Union of Orthodox Congregations. It was also tiny - it ordained one rabbi a year, and had no congregational movement associated with it. The efforts of Adler and Schechter at the turn of the 20th century moved it decidedly to the left, outside the sphere of Orthodoxy, and the congregational movement wasn't even founded until 1913. Outside of America and Germany, however, there was no similar movement - one was either Reform, which was radical, and found in very small numbers in the largest cities, or "everything else", which was both orthodox and orthoprax, and found pretty much everywhere else. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, one was either Reform or orthodox/orthoprax religiously. However, a wave of secularism was also sweeping the Jewish world at the time, and many Jews abandoned religion in favor of various secular movements (e.g. Socialism, Marxism, Zionism). However, these movements weren't "Judaism" (nor did they claim to be), even if they tended to have religious characteristics of their own. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Jayjg, in the 19th century one was Reform, Orthodox, or unclassified (unless you wish to include Hassidim and Misnagdim). The debate hinges on this "unclassified" group and it is largely Orthodox who claim that "unclassified" = Orthodox, but this is a point of view, not a fact (if you wish to use "orthodox" with a small o to refer to this group I will not complain, I simply note - as I explained already - that the difference between Orthodox (proper noun name of a movement) and orthodox (adjective, not the name of a movement) is important.  If this is what you are saying, you could have just said you agree with the point I already made.  for what it is worth I think your word orthoprax is more accurate).  And Reform and Orthodox Jews need to accept the fact that in the 19th century, when they were establishing themselves, most Jews belonged to neither movement.


 * The Conservative movement really grew in the 20th century. Yes.  But that is because large numbers of formerly unclassified Jews became Conservative.  So it is innacurate to say that followers of the Haskalah became Reform and traditional Jews became Orthodox.  Aside from the valid point that Orthodoxy was also influenced by the Haskalah (albeit in a radically different way than Reform), many traditional Jews became Conservative. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Orthodoxy
I just made a more detailed edit that I hope will move us past this little edit-war. I have three points to make here. First, the words reform, conservative, and orthodox all have meanings as verb or adjectives. Let's not confuse that with their meaning as proper nouns. A historian can reasonably describe someone as "orthodox" before the Orthodox movement cam into existence. That does not mean that the two words mean the same thing. Second, the Haskalah was both exciting and traumatic in its effects and while it is true that it influenced Reform, Modern Orthodoxy (which was just Orthodoxy until the Haredi developed) and Conservative movements, Reform, Orthodox and Conservative were also reacting against the Haskalah - yes, in very different ways, but still, all were reactions against it. Finally, before WW II these movements existed in a handful of countries and it is anachronistic to think that in 1930 or 1900 or 1870 all Jews belonged to one of these movements (or Hassidic groups). For most of their existence the world was filled with Jews who kept Kosher and shabbat (and maybe also ate treif or screwed a shiksa if they had the chance, on the side) who didn't care about these movements. A lot of Reform Jews started out as traditional, not as Maskilim (many Maskilim just assimilated) ... when Jews fled from Russia to America in 1905, or when Jews fled Arab countris to Israel, they were faced with a menu of synagogues they could join. It is not that "traditional" Jews evolved into Orthodox Jews, it is that some became Reform, some became Conservative, and some (perhaps many more, granted) became Orthodox.

I made an edit to try to convey this. Perhaps my edit can improved upon but I hope that whatever we end up with is consistent with the above. Slrubenstein  |  Talk


 * Orthodox Judaism is that which did not break away from tradition. Modern Orthodox and Haredi Orthodox are not branches or movements, but are ends of a philosophical spectrum within Orthodox Judaism.  Traditional Jews did not "become Orthodox".  They "remained Orthodox".  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting this as if it were the truth. Wikipedia is not about "the truth," it is abou verifiable views. What you are presenting is a view. Is it your view, or can you find a verifiable source documenting that this is a significant view? Which Jewish historians hold this view? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, I think there's a truth in what Lisa is trying to express. While Modern Orthodoxy and Haredi Orthodoxy are indeed modern movements, and generally reactionary ones at that (particularly the latter), their religious views are far more congruent with what would simply have been called "Judaism" in the 18th-century than are those of the Reform and Conservative movements. Yes, of course, when one suddenly feels a need to define oneself in opposition to something, then the boundaries become more sharply drawn, and certain things that were once acceptable, or at least not a significant issue, now become important boundary markers and differentiators - and it is in this way that Orthodoxy is a "modern movement". But it would be seriously inaccurate to state that 20th-century Reform Judaism had as much in common with 18th-century Judaism as did 20th-century Orthodox Judaism. Reformist movements, by their very nature, embrace change. Reactionary movements, by their very nature, reject change. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if I were to aree with you and Lisa, my point remains that this is still a view. To the extent that there is this closeness between Orthodoxy and Jewish religious practice in the 18th or 17th century, it is because Orthodox leaders consciously modeled themselves on that. We should not be endorsing any one view. Some Conservative Rabbis say that their movement is more authentic to the Judaism of the Amoraim. Some Reform Rabbis argued they were being true to the spirit of the Biblical prophets. I wouldn't expect most Orthodox Jews to agree. NPOV requires us to present each as a view. Our account of Jewish history has to avoid presenting only one movement's view. By the way, that said I do not strongly object to Lisa's edit of my recent edit. I appreciate her taking on as much of what i wrote as she did. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "To the extent that there is this closeness between Orthodoxy and Jewish religious practice in the 18th or 17th century, it is because Orthodox leaders consciously modeled themselves on that." - that's exactly what I was saying. The Orthodox movement was mostly reactionary, not reformist - it clung to existing practices and existing legal codes. That's not a "view" which anyone actually disputes, as far as I know. Yes, reforming movements did, in fact, claim to be following the "spirit" of much earlier groups of Jews - the Amoraim, or the Biblical prophets. But there's no disputing that their practices were a radical departure from those of, say, their grandparents. And, to be honest, they weren't really bringing back the practices (or even philosophies) of those ancient Biblical or Mishnaic times. Rather, they said "these people reformed the practices of previous generations, and so, we too, are reforming the practices of previous generations". They took their authority to do so from those ancient reformers (prophetic or Mishnaic), but they didn't actually institute the religions those reformers created, nor would they really have claimed to be doing so. Reform wasn't advocating the return to a "just" agricultural society, where people brought their offerings of animals and produce to the Temple in Jerusalem, kept slaves, had their own courts of law meting out criminal justice, followed Biblical or Mishnaic legal codes regarding things like ritual purity; they were saying "the Biblical prophets valued justice over rote behavior, and so do we". Now, whether or not they were actually emulating the Biblical prophets, or whether the religion of the Biblical prophets is the religion of Orthodox Jews today, is an area where the movements actually do have different views; but that's not what we're talking about here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Slrubenstein and Lisa, for your thoughtful changes. I have no interest in debating the origins of Orthodox Judaism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mosaic Law"
A user called User:Greyshark09 keeps trying to change the first line of this article by adding unnecessary and redundant (and not very accurate) text. Here's the original beginning:

"Judaism is the 'religion, philosophy, and way of life' of the Jewish people. Originating in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh) and explored in later texts such as the Talmud, it is considered by Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel."

And here's the changed text that Greyshark09 wants:

"Judaism is the 'religion, philosophy, and way of life' of the Jewish people, based on the ancient Mosaic Law.  Originating in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh) and explored in later texts such as the Talmud, it is considered by Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel."

The problem with his addition of "based on the ancient Mosaic Law" is that the very next sentence says that it originates in the Hebrew Bible and is explored in later texts such as the Talmud. Adding the extraneous phrase is either redundant (if it's meant to be the same thing as the following sentence) or contradictory (if it isn't). In either case, the addition seems plainly wrong. His citation for the addition is JewishEncyclopedia.com, which is pretty poor material. Can we get some consensus on this addition? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also see this diff, which shows that Greyshark09 has some idiosyncratic idea of a "Mosaic Law" external to Judaism, and on which Judaism is based:

"The Mosaic Law is the basis to the Religion of Moses and Israel, practiced by several ethnic groups across the world. Most notable ethnic group is the Jews, for whom the Religion of Moses and Israel and Judaism have become almost interchangable concepts. However, Religion of Moses and Israel is also practiced by the Samaritans, Subbotniks, Hebrew Israelites and various modern day converts to Judaism (observers of Mosaic Law)."

He seems to be one of those who feel that modern day converts to Judaism are not actually Jews. At least judging by this edit. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

References


 * I want to stay out of this conflict. Both version seems correct and acceptable to me. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Greyshark09 means well, but their approach is somewhat unhappy. Mosaic law is a disambiguation page. This is unsatisfactory as it stands, and perhaps it should be turned into a short article about the term. The best we can do is say that Moses was a mythological lawgiver invoked by the Deuteronomist as the authority for the laws of the 7th century BCE kingdom of Judah. Of course Judaism is ultimately based on that, but probably not as directly as Greyshark09 thinks.

Greyshark09's reference is valid, but this doesn't mean he has any business pushing it into the WP:LEAD of the Judaism article. It would rather belong somewhere in the article body of the Talmud article. Revert-warring over the lead section of a well-developed article like this one and asking people to "Refer to WP:5P" in the edit summary is simple disruption. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now made Mosaic law a redirect to Moses, where I give a sketch of how the laws of the Pentateuch came to be associated with Moses. Our articles on Torah characters mostly suffer from similar problems: they give a in-universe discussion of the biblical narrative, and then they jump immediately to discussing the interpretation in modern religiousv traditions, leaving out the actual period of the early development of these traditions in the 7th century BCE and the Hellenistic era. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that while your WP:LEAD is a solid reason for abolishing my edit, none of Lisa's provided reasons were valid.
 * It began with Removed unnecessary and redundant text (i believe it is subject to discussion).
 * Went on with The Mosaic Law article talks about the written Torah only. Which means that it isn't relevant here, since Judaism is based on the whole Torah, both written and oral. (this statement in my opinion is very incorrect - Judaism sees oral Torah as part of Mosaic Law in oral form).
 * Please stop. You need to go and read WP:OR (at this point i provided valid references to show my point - which is NOT synthesis, even if Lisa is unfamiliar with relevant religion basics).
 * Then came the denial of my sources saying JewishEncyclopedia.com is a cruddy source. This is an article about Judaism. Not about some postulated "Mosaic Law" that's distinct from Judaism. Even though there were additional sources, and WP:5P clearly says that Lisa doesn't own the article and must avoid personal attacks (i wasn't asking people to refer to 5P, but specifically Lisa) -
 * Wikipedia is free content - no editor owns any article;
 * Wikipeadians should interact in a respectful and civil manner - "...avoid of personal attacks". I must note Lisa began to post threatening and insulting messages on Judaism discussion board, and yours (He seems to be one of those who feel that modern day converts to Judaism are not actually Jews. At least judging by this edit. - which implies this is my opinion, regardless to the fact this is a summary of official policy of the mainstream Israeli Orthodox Jewish establishment. Greyshark09 has been trying to shoehorn his "Mosaic Law" shtick into that article. - i think this intends to bullify an administrator against me.
 * Finally, Lisa went to warfare sanctions saying You have reverted 3 times today. If you do it again, you will be in violation of 3RR., posting a 3RR warning at my board at 20:48 hours, and almost simultaniously posting a Judaism discussion message, relating to me in a 3rd body (is this a way to begin discussion?) at 20:39, so it was not an attempt to communicate, but to draw attention against me is a sort of personal crusade.
 * I'm not dealing with synthesis, and i have received a burnstar for civil discussion and at no point attacked Lisa. I simply protest her unacceptable reasons for removing my legitimate edit, the only valid reason for which is indeed WP:LEAD (i agree, it might belong to body, not header).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * yes I know, it was unfortunate. I tend to focus on fixing content and ignoring personal stuff. The personal hostilities tends to disappear by themselves if (a) they are ignored and if (b) the content issues that triggered them have been resolved. I hope everyone is satisfied with placing the discussion at the Moses section. --dab (𒁳) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)