Talk:Judaism/Archive 22

Judas Iscariot
So, does Judaism have anything to do with Judas Iscariot, or why is it in that case called Judaism? I'm surprised that I couldn't find anything about it either in the article or in the talk page archives. —Kri (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is called "Judaism" after the Tribe of Judah, which in its turn is named after Judah (biblical person). These predate the Judas you mention by 2000 or so years. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Judas Iscariot was a Jew, as were all of the other apostles, and Jesus himself. Judas is the Greek form of "Judah"; he was (ultimately) named after the Biblical Judah, as was the Tribe of Judah, and Judaism itself. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation Bias?
It seems to me that the page on Judaism is written from a perspective that Judaism is the stele by which all truth about Monotheism is confirmed or denied. Anything that confirms the preexisting belief or claims of Judaism is truth and anything that disputes it is falsehood. I simply do not see the same zeal to question the claims about Judaism as there is to question the claims of Zoroastrianism. There is currently a dispute as to which of the two is the oldest monotheistic religion. This dispute involves both Judaism and Zoroastrianism. But the Zoroastrian page is the only one with dispute notifications. So therefore the Judaism page must be indisputable and immutable. It's everything else in history that is suspect. Is this to preserve and protect the confirmation bias? This defies the basic logic that, barring being self conflicted, there is a minimum of two parties to every dispute. In an open minded and unbiased review of that dispute the claims of both paties must be held as being equally suspect. If not, there is a bias present and that is most likely a confirmation bias coming from preexisting knowledge.

The preservation and protection of the confirmation bias is also causing contortion in outside subject matter to cause it to conform to the confirmation bias. The pages on Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism defy time, space and logic. You have Zoroastrianism being founded in the 6th Centurt BCE by a prophet that lived in prehistoric times and lived to be 77. So 677 BCE is prehistoric times? Zoroastrianism wasn't founded by Zarathustra? I just don't know what to make of that. So as a means of discerning the truth I look for perceivably unbiased outside observers. In this case it would be the Greek Historians. They have no dog in the fight of what is the worlds oldest monotheistic religion. There are about 6 or 7 that place the time of Zoroaster at 6,000 years before the battle of Troy. Is there there any outside sources that that confirm Judaism being 3,000 years old and being monotheistic at that time? It seems as though you have allowed Judaism and it's history to be presented unquestioningly by it's practioners. This is not a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you do not afford that same right or privilege to Zoroastrians. When you go the extra mile to ensure that the claims of Zoroastrians do not conflict with Judaism and then say only of the two is disputed. When you establish different burdens of proof for the parties to the dispute.

I think the real problem here is that you are trying to mix Religious doctrines with Scientific principles to come up with the religious equivalent of the Theory of Everything. But you must keep in mind that even in Quantum Mechanics paradox happens. You can have two conflicting statements both of which are true. I think the best way to resolve the conflicts is to seperate the religion from the science and allow the paradox to stand if only to preserve order, logic and rationality. A page about any religion and all associated claims should refeclt the beliefs and history as known by it's practioners. They should also be independant of any other pages. You should not fact check one religion against another. If you have two or more religions claiming to be the first monotheistic religion. So be it! That's a paradox that should be left for the reader to resolve to their own satisfaction. Wikipedia should not appoint themselves Judge, Jury and Executioner in these matters. What if you're wrong? What arises from this is religious debate and that is always centered in belief. Not fact. There is no scientific evidence that proves the existence of any prophet of the elder monotheistic religions. Because of that all debates that arise from them will be confined to belief.

So I proposes subject matter divisions along these lines. Judaism(Belief)Zorostarianism (Belief)etc. Judaism(History)Zorostarianism (History)etc. Judaism(Scientific Evaluation)Zorostarianism (Scientific Evaluation)etc. But never and at anytime should anything in any successive pages be used to alter the originial statement of belief and history as known by it's practioners on any religion. That should be inviolably preserved.

MagusAmathion (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion


 * The tags are not necessarily meant to say that one article is "fact" and the other is not, but that the tagged sections could stand to be improved to meet our policies and guidelines. All Wikipedia does is summarize what we can find in sources, not original research to establish any sort of "Truth" (and so there should not be a confirmation bias, which would occur from deciding "this article should say this, let's find sources only for that").  I can't find any evidence of differences as a result of bias, but rather because of proper following of our neutrality and sourcing guidelines, an abundance of sources on Judaism and an absence for Zoroastrianism, and slightly different focuses for each article.  The Zoroastrianism article focuses more on the history of the religion than the living one (as a result of most sources taking that focus), while this article focuses on the living form instead of the history of it.  If you examine the Jewish history, Origins of Judaism, and Ancient Semitic religion articles, which focus on nearly the same periods as the Zoroastrianism article, there's plenty of problematic tags there.  Wikipedia is a work in progress, and not finished, so it should improve in time as more users with better access to a variety of sources show up, or as better sources are actually written.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, on Wikipedia it is customary to describe a subject first and foremost from its own, inner perspective, and only then to add academic views, controversies, etc. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the source of part of the confusion. If I do a search for Judaism it take you to me to a page that tells of the living religion, as Ian said. If I do a search for Zoroastrianism it take me to a page that tells of the history, as Ian said. So I have to ask, shouldn't the page on Zoroastrianism also tell of the living religion with supporting pages on it's history and origins? I understand that Zoroastrians do much more in the way of promoting the history of the religion. That is mainly to preserve and protect what precious little is left of it. They realized that it was the centralization that allowed it to be easily destroyed. So they now spread it far and wide. But there is also information out there on Zoroastrianism as a living religion. I guess that gathering and presenting that information will be my contribution to the Zoroastrianism page. God knows it needs a lot of work.

I am new here and I will have to read up on your policies for sources. But I can honestly say that if there is a confirmation bias in a source that you cite. That confirmation bias will translate to any derivative works. But I will read up on the links that have been provided. Thank You Very Much.

MagusAmathion (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Magus Amathion

This I have to dispute.

"and the oldest to survive into the present day.[10]"

The source is a PBS article that does not even mention Zoroastrianism which has also survived into present day. So the source shows a confirmation or myside bias. There's much more to monotheism than Abrahamic monotheism. Also Judaism being the "oldest" is hotly disputed. This is stated as fact. Part of the statement is hotly disputed and the rest is simply untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagusAmathion (talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this question many times on this talkpage. Feel free to read sections higher up on this page, and on its archives. Debresser (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia only sets out to summarize sources, not to prove or disprove any particular thing (in other words, the only "should" is "should summarize the sources"). If there are not enough sources on a subject, that's not our fault but academia's.  If you have reliable sources (as described here) which say something the article does not, you're welcome to add on to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with origin of judaism
The explanation of the origins of judaism as currently in the article are problematic. First, three out of four paragraphs simply summarize the Tanakh as history without question. Second, any mention of Judaism arising from preexisting polytheistic near eastern religion is suspiciously omitted. While it is entirely appropriate to give a history Judaism through the lens of the Jewish people and religion this should not be at the expense of scientific opinion. Particularly puzzling is that the article Origins of Judaism appears to be relatively free of this bias in comparison. Overall the article seems to suffer from a blindness to the plastic nature of religious belief throughout the ages. I may make a few changes myself but I'd like feedback first on such a visible article. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Origins of Judaism isn't much better. The treatment of these topics always bother me.  what i'd like to see is simply a list of our currently available historical sources outside of tanakh, and archeological evidence that covers the period 1200bce to 200bce for that area and the various diasporas.  my vague understanding is that there is precious little.  and that should be stated at the outset.Wikiskimmer (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to present judaism's own foundational myth and then to present historical/archeological context to shed light on it. If you've got sources, go for it.  Wikiskimmer (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * One book i've read is: "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts", By ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN and NEIL ASHER SILBERMAN. It seems balanced and focusses on the monarchy.  but i think it mentions things like no evidence for exodus, camels in early genesis is anachronistic, etc.. intro: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html Wikiskimmer (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013 first paragraph edit [redacted]
Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religions of the major religions not one of them .Duh! Smell a tad bit of some kind of ignorance or bias and anti semitism hopefully not the latter. Also the bible in the picture is upside down Hebrew is read left to right not right to left. Wow what a great start on the article. sarcasm Is there a wiki on that too? Hope to see changes thanks

79.176.121.116 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Couple of points:
 * Insulting the editors whose help you are requesting, or claiming some type of bias, etc., is unlikely to result the requested help.
 * The line that Judaism is one of the oldest montheistic religions is based on what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia can only base the article on what reliable sources say.  If you have a reliable source that says that Judaims is definitely the oldest monotheistic religion, please say so.
 * Hebrew is read right to left. See Hebrew. Singularity42 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect/insulting picture
Hi all- without a doubt the picture on the top of the page contains 2 religious books up-side-down. If anyone would like they can purchase and examine one for themselves at http://www.eichlers.com/seforim-1/seforim/nach.html or some other jewish religious bookstore. Most likely, the photographer did not mean to be malicious, rather, he/she could only read Latin based languages.

I realize someone else (rudely?) tried editing this and didn't explain it properly.

The way the books are shown in the picture is considered highly insulting to many orthodox jews (and probably help contributed to the previous editor's anger). I suggest that the picture be replaced. Please feel free to let me know if you need more information.

Aug. 1 2013

Azskyada (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see it now. The book spines should be facing the right, not the left.  It's not ideal.  At the same, speaking as a Jewish editor, I don't see it as "highly insulting".  The book spines are just facing the wrong way - it's a minor problem.  I'm all for replacing the picture.  But I would not agree to removing the picture with nothing to replace it with for this type of problem.  Singularity42 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is an affront for the books. But I wouldn't say it is highly insulting, to such a degree that the picture warrants removal. Debresser (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Major 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or Major 4 ?
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page  Abrahamic-Religions --Wiki hamze (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This article shows too much of Ashkenazi-Oriented Jewish objects (by photos)
That's totally non diversed, and misleading. changes need to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.152.162 (talk • contribs)


 * Like which photo? The shofar, the chanukia, the mezuza, the Jerusalem succah? If these objects are Ashkenazi oriented, you seem to imply that Sefaradi people don't do mitzvot! Or you mean the Yemenite Jew, the Spanish Esnoga in Amterdam? Take your inferiority complex somewhere else, please. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Grain in Judaism
How does Judaism see the role of grains (wheat, barley, etc.)? It does seem like a on-going theme in that religion. Komitsuki (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a question about whether or not grains should be placed on the "Judaism" page? User:tanw87 —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rabbinic Judaism?
Hi all, I'm new here so I'm not entirely sure of the rules, so help me out.

"Today, Rabbinic Judaism is the most numerous stream, and holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah"

I have no idea what "most numerous stream" means. It's untrue if it's a demographic statement - most Jews don't believe God revealed his laws, etc. If it's an origin statement, i.e. "The widest variety of beliefs and practices within Judaism today emerged from the Rabbinic tradition that established Judaism as a portable religion after the destruction of the second temple, etc" then shouldn't we say something like that?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanw87 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Non Protected
Hello Every body we are going to talk about Judaism on another site

HelloimMrD123 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Goodbye
 * If you want the page unprotected, you can make the request at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgeable about rabbis? Female rabbis? Transgender rabbis?
I am not knowledgeable about Judaism, but I do know that woman aren't allowed to be rabbis.

Can anyone that is knowledgeable about rabbis/Jewish law please comment on the Emily Aviva Kapor wikipedia article? Emily Aviva Kapor is a Jewish transgender male-to-female woman that says she is an ordained rabbi. Is this valid? You can also comment on the talk page Talk:Emily_Aviva_Kapor.

In order to be considered a rabbi in Judaism, what exactly do you have to do?

Articles about Emily Aviva Kapor:
 * http://forward.com/articles/165708/transgender-jews-seek-place-at-table/?p=all
 * http://forward.com/articles/180230/emily-aviva-kapor-creating-a-jewish-community-for/
 * http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/145663/schmekel-transgender-punk-band?all=1

Is Forward a reliable source for wikipedia? Do Jewish people view Forward as a legitimate Jewish magazine?

Thanks! 63.247.160.139 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you posted the same question at Talk:Rabbi. I have replied there. Jheald (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Possible Spelling Fix

“...Those that behaved themselues manfully to their honour for Iudaisme...”

Should it not be spelt “themselves”? ((English is not my first language, but I look here for this particular verse in the deuterocanonical book, and it’s spelt “themselves.” 86.27.191.102 (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be spelled that way these days, but u and v used to be the same letter in English (a carry over from adopting the Latin alphabet). I'd change it to something other than the 1611 edition of the King James Version, but it looks like it's quoting the Oxford English Dictionary quoting the 1611 KJV instead of just quoting the Bible, and we need the OED for the citation that that's the earliest use of the word "Judaism."  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I understand now. Sorry for my confusion, and thank you for the clarification, I wondered about the OED. (I learn new things all the time -- from both Wikipedia and editors, that info about old English, u and v is interesting.) 86.27.191.102 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem at all. Thank you for being so helpful at Islam and Muhammad. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

criticism of Judaism
why isn't there a section with that title? especially with all the violence in the old testament and position of women in judaism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.46.59.223 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you try searching for the articles Criticism of Judaism and Anti-Judaism? There's also the issue of due weight.  Most (reliable) sources on Judaism usually do not discuss criticism of it.  Also, that you're calling it "the old testament" instead of the Tanakh does make me question why you want this section...  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Title: "Persecution" in WP article "Judaism"
, Shalom! Persecution of Jews in Arab lands was not limited to the Almohads of Spain or North Africa. It was also prevalent in Yemen, where the Mawza Exile is sketched deep in the sub-conscious of every Yemenite Jew, and even described in the Jewish Encyclopedia and in many other Hebrew writings. Jews were scattered throughout the Diaspora, and, as in many other places, persecution of Jews in Yemen also had its dark periods. I wish to cordially make one correction in what I was wrongly accused of doing, namely, of WP:EDITWARRING. This is certainly not true in my case, as I can prove forthrightly. When my first edit was deleted, the reason given was that it lacked sources. I then reposted the edit, with a reference to the source. Then I was told that the sources were not adequate enough, so I changed the sources, bringing down better sources, and merging my edit with the previous editor's edit - without diminishing aught from the previous edit. Still my newest edit was deleted. Is there no place here for mentioning the sufferings of the Jews of Yemen in the 17th century?

Since the matter of Jewish suffering in Arab lands is not a contested issue, I don't think the label of WP:WEIGHT or of WP:UNDUE would apply in this case. We're simply interested in reporting the facts and bringing the same to the attention of the public. As for an English source, I can provide one from E.J. Brill (Brill Academic Publishers) in Leiden.Davidbena (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are at least three issues here:
 * 1) The sub-section into which you are trying to add this content, is summarizing 'three "main" articles" Persecution of Jews, Antisemitism and History of antisemitism.  In other words, per WP:SUMMARY, what is in this section, should blend the "lead" paragraphs of those three articles, and each of the leads should already summarize the article it is lead for.  Do you see how WP:SUMMARY works?  Leads summarize articles, and 'stub" sections like ours, are in turn based on the lead.  This way the encyclopedia remains coherent.  If you look at the leads of those three articles, the Yemen expulsion has not been considered "important" enough to reach the lead of any of them.  There is no justification for bringing it here, then, is there?


 * 2) Even skipping over that... this is an article on Judaism - the whole enchilada. The question I asked you is this - what is basis for giving WP:WEIGHT in this grand, overarching article, to what happened in Yemen 400 years ago, horrible as it may have been?  The only good answer in the world of Wikipedia, is for you to bring sources equal in scope to this article, and show that the Expulsion is given significant weight there.


 * 3) finally, the sources that have been brought so far are all horrible. Are there not reliable, secondary sources in english that discuss what happened?  If not, then clearly there are not sources supporting giving so much weight to this event.  See WP:UNDUE.


 * Thank you for talking! Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First, with all due respect, you stand to be corrected on three points: 1) The reason the expulsion of Jews from Yemeni towns and cities was not mentioned in the three lead articles (in which ours is a mere summary) is NOT because it was not deemed "important," as you alleged, but rather because it is a subject known primarily in Hebrew sources here, in Israel, whereas in English sources it is scarcely mentioned out of ignorance to the Israeli sources; 2) The source known as the "Jewish Encyclopedia" (if you should be willing to accept it) is by no means an underrated source, but a reputable one; 3) By mentioning briefly the persecution of Jews in Yemen in five or six words in a place whose topic is "Persecution of Jews" does not, by any means, do injustice to the general topic which is indeed broad in nature and not concentrated on any one particular topic.
 * My question to you, therefore, would now be this: If I should mention briefly the account of Yemenite Jewish suffering in Yemen in the three main articles which you've mentioned, can I come back and mention it here?Davidbena (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Davidbena, you added the Yemen persecution to the article already. There is no need for it to be mentioned twice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if that suffices WP it suffices me. I will not pursue the matter further. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oldest?
This will become a very very silly edit war along the lines of "I'm the oldest" "no you're not". Two points, whether or not Judaism is the oldest continuing monotheistic faith is arguable. That depends on when with think it became monotheistic, which is much discussed, since it can be and has been argued that early Judaism is henotheistic ("no other gods before me"). However, we cannot say it is the oldest, in the sense of earliest, monotheism for several reasons. There are many ancient religions, most famously Atenism, that are generally identified as monotheistic, and many that may have been, the antiquity of which is not known (eg, Zalmoxis). Of course Zoroastrianism is also generally identified as Monotheistic, and the antiquity of that, and of Mazdaism in general, is in dispute. We simply cannot make unequivocal statements when the evidence is unclear. It would be intellectually dishonest. I should add that the PBS website is an astoundingly poor source to use for such a serious and well studied topic. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

קר — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.123.222 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 80.2.123.222 seems to have overlooked the Wikipedia rule that contributions should be in English in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.29.53 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish RSs
I am engaged in a chat on a talk page here with an editor who is of the view that Jewish RSs (e.g., The Forward) and presumably Israeli RSs (the conversation includes Haaretz) should not be relied on as refs for inclusion in text of an article of (certain?) Jewish subjects (such as whether a person is Jewish). The conversation may interest some of you. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to post this on WP:JUDAISM. That would be a more logical place for this post. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

incorrect quote
Hi, I've made very few edits on Wikipedia and, as such, I am not able to edit this article (semi-protected). However, I noticed in the section on "Rabbinic hermeneutics" that the second paragraph (Talmud Shabbat 127a), is an incomplete quote. It currently reads

"These are the things for which a person enjoys the dividends in this world while the principal remains for the person to enjoy in the world to come; they are: honoring parents, loving deeds of kindness, and making peace between one person and another. But the study of the Torah is equal to them all."

The full quote is

"These are the things for which a person enjoys the dividends in this world while the principal remains for the person to enjoy in the world to come; they are: honoring parents, loving deeds of kindness, punctuality at the house of study morning and night, hospitality to guests, visiting the sick, providing for the needs of a bride, escorting the dead, intense involvement in prayer, and making peace between one person and another. But the study of the Torah is equal to them all."

Please fix this ASAP.

Ukobarrywewa (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140715221852/http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/judaism?view=uk to http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/judaism?view=uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Capital letters
undid my revision 678877732 with the explanation "pronouns referring to deity are not capitalized". If that is WP policy, of course I accept it. Please indicate where that rule is to be found.

I deliberately looked through the rest of the article for examples, so whichever way it went, I could keep it consistent. I found just one other pronoun referring to deity:
 * Unlike other ancient Near Eastern gods, the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, the Hebrew God's principal relationships are not with other gods, but with the world, and more specifically, with the people He created.

One up, one down, a split decision. So I went with the usual English convention and capitalized the other pronoun. Thnidu (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just looked it up. It is in MOS:CAPS. Debresser (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've lowercased the other instance.-- Don't assume that everyone knows as much as you about WP editorial policies, including details of the MOS. Without a reference, and not knowing you, I had no way to know that this was policy and not just your arbitrary diktat. Please include links with your editorial corrections and reversions. Thank you. --Thnidu (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Would I lie to you? ; ) Editor2020, Talk 17:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope not, but as I said, I don't know you. --Thnidu (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Name change ?
Isn't the real name of the former (Old Testament) Israelites religious creed "Mosaic faith" ? After Moses and the five first books in the Old Testament ? Judaism kind of imply that all Jews are of Judaistic creed as well ? What might Jews say about this ? In Copenhagen there is a cemetery for Jews only, and it's called "Mosaisk Kirkegård" (Where "kirkegård" means "cemetery"). Just a question. Boeing720 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't the real meaning of the word "kirkegård" - "garden of the church". Why is such a word used for a Jewish cemetery? Also just a question. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Judaism comes from the name Judah (Yehuda), which was the the tribe (or creed as you called it) to which the kingship was given by God. Since most Jews then followed the Davidic dynasty, and David was a descendant of Yehuda through Yehuda's son Peretz, they were referred to as Yehudim. Although the first king of Israel was Saul who was from the tribe of Binyamin (Benjamin in English), his reign was very short and he had no dynasty (see Shmuel I for more information on this). Ukobarrywewa (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's Danish. This is English.
 * I am a Jew, and that's what we call ourselves. In English, the primary meaning of the word "mosaic" is "the art of creating images [or non-imagistic designs] with an assemblage of small pieces of colored glass, stone, or other materials", or a work so created.
 * Isn't the real name of the former (Old Testament) Israelites religious creed "Mosaic faith"? I don't think I've ever heard that expression in English. And what do you mean by "real name"? Names, especially the names of things as opposed to personal names, are established by convention, not by etymology (see 's comment above) or magic. If I, a well educated and fully literate American Jew and native speaker of American English, have never encountered the term in my six and threescore years on Earth, I seriously doubt that it is in regular use, if at all.
 * --Thnidu (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please Thnidu, it was questions . But I'm glad You answered and explained some of my questions. I owe You one answer, can I see. By "real name" did I mean the the name of the Jewish religion, just like "Christianity". But You avoided a key question. This is a linguistic question mainly, but perhaps not entirely (?) But no offense is ment. Please let me assure You of that. I put it to You this way - if a (former) Christian converts or rejects religion totally, that person clearly no longer is a Christian. But how about Jews in the same circumstances. Are they still Jews ? (And is "Judaism" the "real" name of the religion in English ?) Boeing720 (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No hard feelings. — One bit of advice on your English before getting to the substance of the matter: English does not capitalize second-person pronouns for politeness (like German Sie and Spanish Usted/Ud./Vd. The only time we capitalize "You" is, on occasion, when addressing God, and AFAIK I'm not That One! ;-)
 * Different branches of Judaism have different views on the issue. To Orthodox Jews, a person whose mother is Jewish is a Jew, whether he knows it or not, unless he explicitly renounces Judaism. (I'm especially aware of this rule right now because I'm reading a series of mystery novels in which it's an important point of the background, Faye Kellerman's Decker/Lazarus novels. Other varieties of Judaism have different rules.
 * Unlike Christian, which refers exclusively to religion, Jew is also an ethnic term, as we theoretically trace our ancestry, at least in part, to the Israelites whom Moses led out of Egypt. Converts are considered to be "adopted" into the people Israel: liturgically we use Hebrew names of the form "NAME son/daughter of FATHER'S NAME" (non-Orthodox sometimes add "and MOTHER'S NAME"), and converts are named "NAME son/daughter of Abraham (and Sarah)". Many modern Jews consider themselves "ethnic Jews", rejecting much or all of the religion but holding to many of the customs they grew up with.
 * And to your last question I can only reiterate: Names are not intrinsically linked to their referents. But the name most commonly used, in fact almost always used in English for the religion of the Jews in all its varieties is Judaism. HTH. --Thnidu (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes this helped - quite a lot as well. I'm rather well versed in the Patriarcs. Ambraham - Isak - Jakob - Josef (names in Swedish, but I hope they are understandable) and his bothers. Josef had dreams which his brothers (except the younger Benjamin) disliked, and they threw him into a well. Someone helped him, and finally he came to the Farao. Many generations later Moses saw a burning bush, and God told him to leave Egypt for the promised land. Exodus etc. I thank y ou for this explination. Boeing720 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of accepted name for Talmud
User Debresser has been removing the full academically accepted name for the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud based on the OR claim that Palestinian is an alternative name. This document was not written in Jerusalem, and is commonly referred to by both names. Before launching further action I would welcome comment here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I explained in my edit summary, the article on Wikipedia is located at Jerusalem Talmud and we simply do not provide alternative titles or explanations every time we link to an article. That is what the link is for. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I explained it is OR to call it an alternative title, that implies POV between the two titles, and that i solely based on OR. The title is The Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud.  Where is the wikipedia ruling that correct titles are not used?  The title should reflect where the document was written and it actually has nothing to do with Jerusalem.  The link is not there to prevent the full use of a name, that is OR in itself.  The link is the to like to the article. There is every reason to use the correct name wherever it is used.  Note that we go by academic sources, and not religious preferences in wikipedia.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can use only one title. The question whether that should be Jerusalem Talmud or Palestinian Talmud (which is a redirect there), you can raise on the talkpage of that article. What you can not do is change the way Wikipedia works. By the way, please notice that the issue has (of course) been raised in the past, see this section of the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The name in the original aramaic, and the way it has been referenced since at least the 9th century, is Talmud Yerushalmi, or Jerusalem Talmud. Whilst some scholars refer to it as Palestinian Talmud, this is a secondary name, especially in light of Article titles, for which "Jerusalem Talmud" is the most used (and thus most natural) and most recognized title, and is precise and concise. -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Humanistic Judaism
User Debresser has removed my edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism&diff=681444132&oldid=681443951

We are now left with POV text which uses the term Liberal when that term is not in the RS. The text still reads. the Liberal movements in modern times such as Humanistic Judaism may be nontheistic. Since no suggestion for genuine improvement has been given I shall simply remove the word Liberal as it is POV, and no in the RS. HJ does not call itself Liberal, so why does Wikipedia? I don't want to have to take this to dispute so would welcome sugestions.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake. All I wanted to undo is revert your change to the link to the Northern Kingdom. I fixed it now. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Jews and the Promised Land
The article says: "As a reward for his act of faith in one God, he [Abraham] was promised that Isaac, his second son, would inherit the Land of Israel." That's not what Genesis says. There's nothing in there about an "act of faith" in God or anything else. The land of Canaan (i.e. the land allocated to Canaan by God) was taken from him by God because Canaan's father Ham sinned against Noah by uncovering his nakedness. It was given to Abraham because he was the direct descendant of Adam, through a succession of mostly first sons but occasional youngest ones, making him the legitimate heir. Apart from this (descent from Adam in the senior line) there was no other reason why Abraham was given the land that Canaan lost. Have you got sources? PiCo (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just read on a bit, till you get about the part where Abraham was promised the land for him and Isaac in reward for his willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that was a renewal of the promise - it was made earlier. First thing was Canaan lost the right to land in the Noah/Ham story, then comes the Table of Nations in which we're told the peoples and their lands, then Babel followed by the dispersal of peoples (those two are in the wrong order), then some rather boring material and finally Abraham. No explicit reason is ever given for why Canaan's land is given to Abraham, but he is the eldest by descent from Adam, allowing for the "last son" twists (just as David is the youngest son of Jesse - youngest sons are frequently singled out for divine favour).PiCo (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The first time the promise is made is in Genesis 12:7. I see no reason there whatsoever. Then again 13:15, 15:7, 15:18 and 17:8, also without reason. Maybe I was wrong, and the act of faith was a reference to Abraham leaving his hometown. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly Abraham showed faith in his God by obeying the cammand to leave his city and travel "to the land which I shall show you"; but yes, no reason is given, not then, and not even, I believe, in the episode of the near-sacrifice of Isaac. So far as I know God's reasons for choosing Abraham and his seed are never stated anywhere. It's merely an inference that it's because he's the legitimate heir of Adam (a line of eldest sons with an occasional youngest - but at some points it's unclear who's eldest and who's youngest). And why Canaan's land? Canaan presumably forfeited it through the sin of Ham - no sin of his own, of course, but I think he was the eldest son of Ham, and therefore the legitimate heir. And why was that specific land allocated originally to Canaan? It's the land where God has his holy mountain (Moriah, later the site of the Temple - but not the same as Sinai, which is odd). All very mysterious, good fun to puzzle over, but not to devote a lifetime of study to :) PiCo (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has much to do with his descent from Adam, more from Shem. That connection is mentioned in the commentaries (Rashi among others). Debresser (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I must confess I've never seen anything about WHY God chose Abraham. This idea that it's to do with descent from Adam is purely my own - tho it would be interesting to ask a genuine scholar the same question. Anyway, the descent equation seems to be: Adam has 3 sons, of whom the first commits a serious sin (incidentally removing the second), leaving the youngest as the favoured one. Noah, tenth from Adam, also has 3 sons, of whom the eldest is favoured (though the text is confusing) and the middle one commits a sin which falls upon his own eldest son. Terah is the tenth from Noah, and he has 3 sons, of whom the eldest (Abraham) is favoured. So, 20 generations divided into two equal parts, with 3 sons at crucial points, of whom the last, first, and first are favoured (youngest and eldest both being significant in folkloric terms, but youngest, when it occurs, marking a most auspicious moment - David is a youngest son, as is Joseph at the time of his kidnapping). So Abraham is the rightful heir of Shem and Adam, and every other patriarch before him. After him the significance becomes murky - Isaac and Jacob, and certainly Jacob's 12 sons are a significant number (12=divine completion), but what to make of their birth-order? Someone must have written about this, but I haven't seen anything. And of course Judah has 3 sons, and from there I believe it's 7 generations to David but I'd have to look it up (7 also being a magic number for the ancients). Jesse has 7 sons (8 in Chronicles, signifying completion on earth), then it's back to 20 again (20 kings of Judah from the completion of the Temple to its destruction). Somebody went to a lot of trouble to put all these puzzles into the Tanakh, and I can only imagine it must have been a teaching tool - "now students, I want you to count the generations...") PiCo (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Gents, while this may seem urgent, please remember this is not a religious discussion board (see: Wikipedia is not a forum.) Discussing the true intentions of a character/actor/being is a completely subjective exercise which cannot be resolved using references in an encyclopedia, and needlessly clutters up the talk page. It does not belong here. Thanks for your understanding and support of our core mission as editors. Lexlex (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lexlex The promise of the promised land is central in Judaism, and has always been so. This discussion belongs here. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lexlex, I'm sorry, I do find these questions fascinating but I do also tend to go off-topic. Back on-topic, in my first post I noted that, so far as I know, the statement made in the article that Abraham was given the land of Canaan as a reward for his faith, is unsupported. So far as I know there's no word anywhere in the Tanakh or in scholarly sources as to why the promised land was promised or (more importantly) why the Jews were chosen. This is important, but needs some research in secondary sources.PiCo (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to edit section 5.7 "Dietary Laws: Kashrut"
I'm requesting to add an edit to section 5.7 "Dietary Laws: Kashrut". After this sentence: "Certain types of seafood, such as shellfish, crustaceans, and eels, are therefore considered non-kosher." I would like to add another sentence that reads: "There is a debate about whether fish that lose their scales as they mature are considered kosher."

See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnmoallem (talk • contribs)


 * The source you provided doesn't say there is a debate, rather that they are kosher. Also, the vague sentence " (I have heard that the Spanish mackerel is one such fish.)" there, doesn't give the impression this is a very relevant rule. Debresser (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sourcing that line about the Spanish mackerel, I am sourcing the sentence in the paragraph before that says "Conversely, if a type of fish has scales when it is young but not when it matures, there are differing views as to whether or not it is kosher." Since there are "differing views" on this matter, it indicates that there is a debate. You are correct in stating that fish, such as the Spanish mackerel, who lose their scales once they are caught/exposed to dry land are indeed considered Kosher. However, I am talking about a different class of fish who are born with scales, and lose them as they age -- the loss of scales in these fish is not incumbent on being caught. They will lose them while they are still in the water. Dnmoallem (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)dnmoallem


 * Dnmoallem. Sounds to me like you have sufficient evidence to make this change.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Johnmcintyre1959 You just oppose me anywhere and whatever.
 * @Dnmoallem If the source says they are kosher, why should the article say there are "differing views" or a "debate"? Debresser (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Debresser The source does not say this category of fish is definitively Kosher. If you look at the sentence which I'm telling you that I'm sourcing, it is obvious that there is a debate about whether or not they are kosher: "Conversely, if a type of fish has scales when it is young but not when it matures, there are differing views as to whether or not it is kosher." It clearly says that "there are differing views". The fact that there are "differing views" indicates that there is a debate on this issue. As it stands, this Wikipedia article does not show any of the intricacies regarding determining if fish are kosher or not. I would like to add this sentence to show that its not just "shellfish, crustaceans, and eels," that are not kosher; different types of fish that may seem like they should be considered kosher, may not be. Dnmoallem (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)dnmoallem
 * @Debresser, get over yourself. Your recent edit history shows that you oppose me everywhere even when I improve poor written English. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews&diff=691911216&oldid=691911122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jews&diff=prev&oldid=691911122Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Debresser @Johnmcintyre1959 Forgive me, I didn't mean to start an argument between you two! Can somebody approve this revision? It is supported by a very reliable source and it can only help improve the quality of the page. Dnmoallem (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)dnmoallem


 * @Dnmoallem I apologize. I mixed up two things in that source. Regarding fish that shed their scales when caught and brought to dry land it says clearly that they are kosher. But the subject was not when the fish is brought to dry land, but when it matures, and regarding that the sources says indeed that there are different opinions.
 * Another question is the following. We see three possible scenarios: 1. fish that shed their scales when caught and brought to dry land 2. fish that shed their scales when they mature. 3. fish that develops scales when they mature. I don't think we should have all these three possibly scenarios in this article, which is about Judaism, not about fish kashrut or even kashrut in general. Having only one of the three scenarios is also not justifiable. I thikn we should not have this at all. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are lucky. He has never apologised to me.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I am a serious editor. I admit my mistakes, and always edit as I think best for this project. If I never apologized to you, that means I have yet to come to the conclusion that you were right and I wrong. No hard feelings. :)
 * While you're here, what do you say about the issue of undue detail for this article? Debresser (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Debresser I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Having one of the scenarios that you listed is definitely justifiable. The edit that I am trying to make (which corresponds to the 2nd scenario that you listed) is the only scenario that is a point of contention in Jewish Law. Nobody will refute the fact that fish that shed their scales when caught and brought to dry land are kosher. Likewise, nobody will refute the fact that fish that develop scales when they mature are kosher. As a result, these 2 scenarios are not noteworthy enough to list on the article -- they are both aspects of seafood kashrut that everyone agrees upon. Nothing special there. However, there is a debate about whether fish that shed their scales when they mature. The scenario in which I am proposing to add, is noteworthy enough to add to the article, since it is a point of contention in Jewish law. The fact that it is something that is still debated upon today, makes it appropriate enough and interesting enough to add to the page. @Johnmcintyre1959 I am also curious to hear what you have to say on this matter. Dnmoallem (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. There are literally thousands of points on which poskim disagree. This one is not notable in itself, and not any more notable than any other. This is an unacceptably minute detail in comparison to the rest of this article. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Debresser I obviously didn't mean this is the only point of contention in all of Jewish law. I meant that it's the only scenario of the 3 that you listed which is debated upon. I can only see this edit improving the overall quality of the page and increasing the knowledge of the reader -- which is the whole point of Wikipedia. What are you afraid would happen if you approved this edit?
 * First of all, I am not an "official" who approves or disapproves. I am just another editor. We are all ruled by WP:CONSENSUS.
 * I am not afraid of anything, and I don't understand your attempt at psychoanalysis. This information is unnecessary detail for this article, extremely so even. That's all. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
The following have been suggested for edits in this article- the way it is written now is a misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobLMetz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In the Karaite Section:

"Karaite Judaism defines itself as the remnants of the non-Rabbinic Jewish sects of the Second Temple period, such as the Sadducees" should read: "The Karaite Jews define themselves as the spiritual heirs of the Sadducees and the successors of the so-called Ṣadiqim (the "Righteous"). "Some European Karaites do not see themselves as part of the Jewish community at all, although most do." should read "Many European Karaites do not see themselves as part of the Jewish people at all, although some do."

In the Samaritan section:

"The Samaritans, a very small non-Jewish community located entirely around Mount Gerizim in the Shekhem/Nablus region of Samaria and in Holon, near Tel Aviv in Israel, regard themselves as the descendants of the Israelites of the Iron Age northern kingdom of Israel. Their religious practices are based on the literal text of the Torah (Five Books of Moses) in its Samaritan version, which they view as the only authoritative Scripture (with a special regard also for the Samaritan Book of Joshua)."§Jacob Metz

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015
Add more about modern versus ancient Judaism in terms of religion and nationality. For pre-modern Judaism, there was no distinction between the two, it was just a collective people. Moses Mendelssohn is credited with the idea the Judaism is just a religion, and nothing more; as opposed to a political and national entity. Mendelssohn lived during the 1700's in Germany, and was interested in emancipation and assimilation. He liked the idea of Jews being treated as Germans in public, and only acted specifically like Jews in the privacy of their own homes. He believed that reducing Jewish culture to just a religion removed all the major differences and allowed the Jews to assimilate to European culture as best as they could. Amos Oz and his daughter, Fania Oz-Salzberger are 20th and 21st century secular Jews. They believe that Judaism is a nationality and not a religion. Religious elements can exist as part of the greater nation, but not independently. Moses Mendelssohn gave modern Jews in the Diaspora the opportunity to decide how assimilated they want to be and how distinctly Jewish they would like to be. Mordecai Kaplan's unique perspective of being born into an observant Lithuanian family in in 1893, but being raised in New York, allowed him to respect both Jewish and American traditions greatly. He wanted to take the best traits from both cultures and combine them both in private and in public. Kaplan described Judaism as a "religious civilization." Judaism has all the components that any society would have: politics, language, history, but religion is at its center and is the best part part of the civilization. Jdgoodman4 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a whole Jewish identity section, including a subsection Judaism. Isn't that enough? Debresser (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph omits Mishnah
First paragraph has an error. The Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah, yet it's absent in the first sentence. Overful (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is that an error? At most it can be an omission. In any case, that sentence mentions the Midrash and the Talmud as examples. Therefore, the list is not exhaustive, and there is no imperative to mention the Mishnah. Also, the word "Talmud" is better knows than the word "Mishnah", in English, which is a good reason to mention the Talmud. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Article lacks information on historical scholars' views.
I looked up this article out of curiosity as to what are the most widely accepted views among historians (not theologians or religious practitioners) as to the origins of Judaism. All I see is the faith based, theological, tradition informed views of the origins of Judaism (Abraham's covenant, etc).

There is precious little of any information regarding the views of objective academic scholars and historians as to the origins of Judaism.

As such it's really not a particularly informative or encyclopedic article so much as a survey of Jewish theology and traditional beliefs.

CannotFindAName (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article points you to Origins of Judaism, which should be more informative for your needs, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2016
Query neutrality in 'Judaism and other religions - Christianity and Judaism / Islam and Judaism'

"Jews in Christian lands were subject to humiliating legal restrictions and limitations…" then goes on to list the same things that are referred to as 'interaction' in Islam and Judaism; "The religions' adherents have interacted with each other since…".

The Christianity and Judaism section is indicting whereas the Islam and Judaism section is apologetic. eg "Disabilities also included special taxes…" / "…certain restrictions that were not imposed on Muslims.[124] For example, they had to pay the jizya,…" ; "…went even further…" / "…not entirely free from persecution…" ; "…provisions requiring Jews to wear specific and identifying clothing such as the Jewish hat and the yellow badge, restricting Jews…" / "…highly symbolic. For example, dhimmis in some countries were required to wear distinctive clothing…"

Islam "originated" and Christianty is referred to as "invention".

"The action taken by Christians against Jews … culminating in the Holocaust.[120]:21[121]:169[122]" is citeable yet arguable - this statement ties Christianity to the Holocaust causaly, which is opinion, at least way far from any threshold of supporting detail, for which this section is not intended. I would not think it necessary here to articulate a causal link between Islam and antisemitism in general (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza) or specifically (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings) so why do so for Christians.

A quick reading of these two sections seems clearly to me to fail in the aim of neutrality. I think a careful edit could resolve this, ta.

77.89.132.91 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like some real WP:NPOV issues, but the English is a tad unclear. If anybody can make sense of this, I support enforcing NPOV style and language, per standing Wikipedia policy. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13(talk) 18:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust blamed on Christians? Seriously???
> "The action taken by Christians against Jews included acts of violence, and murder culminating in the Holocaust". I really don't care how sourced this statement is, it is patently false. The Holocaust was perpetrated by Hitler on an ideology of eugenics, and had NOTHING to do with Christians wanting to murder Jews. Murder is fundamentally against Christian beliefs and Christ's teaching of loving others. I think most Christians consider Hitler one of the most (if not the most) evil men who ever lived, and do not share his ideologies whatsoever. Who even approved this edit??? This is supposed to be a protected page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.126.190 (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you to learn that there are and always have been bad Christians, that is to say, Christians who may overlook murder and other sins when it suits their purposes. At any rate, please read WP:TRUTH; Wikipedia is about verifiable information based on reliable sources, nothing else. clpo13(talk) 07:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

List of founders of religious traditions‎‎
Those interested in joining a discussion whether to add Judaism (Founder: Israelites) to this list, please see Talk:List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Overall Article: Editorial Help
This article feels extremely muddled, verbose, arcane, and just a plain hodgepodge for a first time reader. Seriously I am getting a headache by reading it- it seems like a collection of random pet contributions that grew until enormously unwieldy over time. I understand that any edit becomes extremely painful and divisive on a Wikipedia article of this importance, but something needs to be done.

Perhaps some of the main editors of this article, who babysit it, so to speak, and contribute often, can get together and start a discussion to find a way to clean this thing up and make it a product of excellence.

I agree, and I will attempt to improve it Humanjf (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Article lacks information on historical scholars' views.
I looked up this article out of curiosity as to what are the most widely accepted views among historians (not theologians or religious practitioners) as to the origins of Judaism. All I see is the faith based, theological, tradition informed views of the origins of Judaism (Abraham's covenant, etc).

There is precious little of any information regarding the views of objective academic scholars and historians as to the origins of Judaism.

As such it's really not a particularly informative or encyclopedic article so much as a survey of Jewish theology and traditional beliefs.

User "Dweller" unilaterally deleted my comment and should be disciplined for doing so.

CannotFindAName (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Abrahamic monotheistic religion
@N0n3up Regarding our recent reverts. It is not that I disagree that Judaism is an Abrahamic religion, of course. It is more that I think that in that sentence in the very first paragraph the word "Abrahamic" is a non-essential limitation of the words "monotheistic religion". I would mention the fact that Judaism is an Abrahamic religion in the third paragraph, which deals in more detail with the religion. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi @Debresser. The reason I added the word Abrahamic on that sentence which was the second sentence of the first paragraph was because it started to talk about the Jewish religion itself, right after mentioning the fact that Judaism was more than a religion. The third paragraph imo deals more in depth as you mentioned but the term emphasizes that Judaism is an Abrahamic religion, a vital detail as pointing out as is also monotheistic. Btw, I self reverted per WP:BOLD back to the original version. (N0n3up (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC))
 * @Debresser I saw your message on my talk and opened a discussion on WT:JUDAISM in here. (N0n3up (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC))
 * This issue was resolved there by consensus to keep the status quo. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110109031643/http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf to http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-While-Most-Americans-Believe-in-God-Only-36-pct-A-2003-10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahistoric
In this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism&diff=752521324&oldid=752474717 the reference to Samaritans was removed as being ahistoric. Wouldn't it be better to say this?

Judaism includes a wide corpus of texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. Historically, this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period; and Sabbateans during the early and later medieval period; Today it is rejected by Samaritans, the Karaites, and by segments of the modern non-Orthodox denominations. Ottawagalz (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ottawagalz. My comment about the ahistoricity of the Samaritans wasn't meant to suggest that modern-day Samaritans challenge rabbinic Judaism. The Samaritans and the other Israelites were rivals in the first millennium BCE; rabbinic Judaism didn't develop until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. There are fewer than 800 Samaritans in the world today, and they hardly warrant a mention in the lead section of this article as modern opponents of rabbinic Judaism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However modern day Samaritans do challenge the use of the Oral Torah.  They may be small in number now, but I would like to think that their belief in only the first five books of the written Torah warrant the mention above. After all they, like the Karaites are still around. RegardsOttawagalz (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Spectrum of observance
Recent edits have changed "Of that population of connected Jews, 80% participated in some sort of Jewish religious observance, but only 48% belonged to a synagogue, and fewer than 16% attend regularly." to "congregation or synagogue", back again once or twice, and now to "a congregation".

This fact appears to be cited to the NJPS 2001 (and not to the entirely bogus Harris Interactive cite which the attendance figure is cited to). This document consistently refers to synagogues, not congregations, but as far as I can see no distinction is drawn; presumably almost no-one regularly engages in organised worship but never does so in a physical synagogue.

I don't really care which word we use (although I slightly prefer "synagogue" since presumably the NJPS used the word they actually asked about) but both line-astern seems obviously redundant. The rationale for the edit that kicked this off "(not all jewish congregation own synagouge)" seems to have resulted from simple confusion between worshippers belonging to a synagogue (a phrase the article uses) and a synagogue (physical building) belonging to people. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to use whatever term the source used. I don't have access to the survey, it's blocked where I am. If the source says synagogue, then it's fine to use that. I switched to congregation, because that encompasses synagogues, temples, and whatnots which the survey anyway most likely meant. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * People are members of a congregation and frequent a synagogue. It's the same thing since each congregation has its own synagogue. I think we should have either both or just congregation, but not just synagogue. So I am fine with Sir Joseph's edit. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a bit of trouble chasing it down but the NJPS 2001 does consistently say "synagogue". That already encompasses synagogues, temples, and whatnots, because "synagogue" is what "temples and whatnots" are called in Judaism.
 * So Sir Joseph say we should use whatever term the source used (which is "synagogue") but Debresser says "congregation" and "synagogue" are the same thing but only "congregation" can stand alone, which I don't quite understand. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * On a general note and something a bit more specific. In general, we should stick close to sources, but that means we should stick close to the content of our sources. We are under no obligation to use the same language as our sources, unless in a quote, and we are actually encouraged to paraphrase. In this case my reasoning is the following. A synagogue is a building. People go to them not because they like the building, but because that is where their congregation of choice holds its services and events. So what counts is the congregation, not the synagogue. For that reason, I think that is the word we should use. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928080259/http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html to http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023183108/https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm to https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hasidism
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I was planning on adding some more information to the Hasidism section. I feel the community could benefit from some clarity as to how and why hasidism spread. I am going to add information to supplement the information already provided. I want to talk about where Hasidism spread successfully and more importantly, how and why this happened. Please feel free to give me any input regarding my contribution on either this talk page or my talk page. Thank you! Taylor152 (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I would suggest focusing your attention on the main article, Hasidic Judaism. The present article has space only for brief descriptions of individual movements, and the coverage of Hasidism in it is already quite significant relative to the other movements. Major additions are likely to raise objections from the standpoint of WP:PROPORTION. This section of the WP:NPOV policy instructs us to treat different sub-topics "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So, a significant expansion of the Hasidism section would only be appropriate if this topic currently gets a smaller fraction of the article than it does in the body of general publications on Judaism. Alternatively, you could argue that the Hasidism section currently covers some aspects of Hasidism which get less coverage in reliable sources than the aspects you're suggesting to cover, and therefore should be replaced. In either case, such arguments should be made with reference to RSs. Eperoton (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, I agree with you in general but the suggested changes won't be long. This is being written as part of a university course facilitated by the WikiEdu Foundation, and the assignment is to add 100-300 words - not a lot. , you could indeed make the argument that you will replace the current information. It does seem to be based on less reliable sources than what you're suggesting.Chapmansh (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . It looks like has already made the addition, and I've done a copy edit of it. As you say, it isn't long, and I personally have no objection to it. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222083350/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/dorff_wines.pdf to http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/dorff_wines.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/tanakh.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006035045/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950 to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606010806/http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/9660/ to http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/9660/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence
The lead sentence currently states: "Judaism (from Latin: Iudaismus, derived from Greek Ἰουδαϊσμός, originally from Hebrew יהודה‎, Yehudah, "Judah";[1][2] in Hebrew: יהדות‎, Yahadut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos) ...". This is hard to read and contains information better suited to an etymology section in the article. Any suggestions on how to fix it? LK (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine the way it is. That's precisely why it is in . You noticed those, didn't you? Debresser (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think has a point. That's a long parenthetical for an opening sentence, and much of its contents are either not very informative or unclear. For the former, are Latin and Greek spellings really critical information? We could write: "originally from Hebrew יהודה‎, Yehudah, "Judah", via Latin and Greek". On the other hand, the reference to Yahadut seems unclear. The concept covered in this article is not the same as "the distinctive characteristics of the Judean ethnos" (that would be closer to "Jewishness"), so that part is just confusing. Eperoton (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm going to rewrite based on this suggestion. Please feel free to further rewrite to improve.  LK (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence is fine the way it is. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also rearranged the sentences a bit for readability. Let's keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are written for people who will be reading it mostly for the first time. We should focus on readability, and on emphasizing the important points. Other information can be included in the infobox, or in the article itself. LK (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5767/shemot67/mikdash.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160420025531/http://www.uscj.org/index1.html to http://www.uscj.org/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Jews and Judaism" navigational template
Jews and Judaism is too large. New version is ready – see Template talk:Jews and Judaism. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2017
In the last paragraph of paragraph 1.1 'Defining Characteristics' it says: "Moreover, some have argued that Judaism is a non-creedal religion that does not require one to believe in God.". It should be added ", although this is in contrast with the first of Judaism's 10 Commandments which is belief in God." Exodus 20:2  Jae Zed (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide reliable sources that describe the first of the Ten Commandments as a requirement to believe in God. I can't begin to consider whether the change you propose is reasonable when I don't see any such requirement in . (A requirement not to worship other gods, yes, but not a requirement to believe in the existence of God, or any god.) — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100825103843/http://www.kjuonline.com/To_Our_Fellow_Jews.htm to http://www.kjuonline.com/To_Our_Fellow_Jews.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151020172143/http://www.umjc.org/what-are-the-standards-of-the-umjc/ to http://www.umjc.org/what-are-the-standards-of-the-umjc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018
74.108.80.66 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No request, so nothing was done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

First sentence
Is there any problem in the first sentence? Please correct it.--Arun Sunil Kollam (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Judaism in Arabs article
Hello, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Arabs, whether to include Judaism in the infobox, claiming Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity Infantom (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an accurate description of the discussion; "claiming Jews are a religious group and not an ethnicity" is a straw man. Please don't read that and get prepared to argue with it, because no-one's saying it, of course. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They can be both. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Find sources"in text box?
At the beginning of this talk page, there's a text box that says "Find sources." I'd like to help, but what where do I start? Sources for what, exactly? This is a long article, and there are already nearly 170 citations. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are links which can be helpful if you're looking for a source to support some piece of information that you wish to add to the article. It's not saying that the article is under-referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the numbers in the various sects?
This article indicates that there are about 14.3 million Jews, a number that seems to be widely reported.

The article on Orthodox Judaism claims there are 2 million members plus 2 million others, the article on Conservative Judaism indicates 1.1 million members, and the article on Reform Judaism indicates 1.8 million.

2 + 2 + 1.1 + 1.8 is only 6.9 million. It appears to be short by a factor of 2. TundraGreen (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that the figures all come from different sources. The total number of Jews might include any ethnic Jews worldwide who do not explicitly identify as belonging to a different religion (or perhaps even including some persons who identify as "Jewish and..."), while the figures for each sect might only include people in countries with significant Jewish populations who specifically identify as belonging to that sect (and not those who just happen to go to an Orthodox or Reform synagogue but identify as simply Jewish). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding to/repeating Ian's wise comments... The gap is 'atheist Jews', 'agnostic Jews' and Jews who wouldn't want to label themselves or would call themselves "non practicing" or many other titles. Even among practising, you miss out some categories: there are Jews to the left of Reform, like Liberal Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerns with lead's definition of Judaism
The lead defines Judaism as the religion of the Jewish people but if you follow the fact is the jew and jewish person includes secular ethnic jews, ethnic jews who have converted or joined other religions such as Christianity, and messianic jews which combine Christianity with judaism and for which much debate exists as to whether they are truly judaist or not. As such, not all "jewish people" would consider judaism as their religion. Also, there is the issue of converts to judaism. While some of the might consider the conversion to as granting membership in the group known as "jewish people", others do not consider themselves at such and consider themselves non-ethnic judaists. The lead section also mention "Jews are an ethnoreligious group" but again, not all Jews (especially secular ethnic jews) would not identify as ethnoreligious, as they do not see judaism as the tie that binds them. While it's true that many of the secular aspects of Jewish culture that secular jews identify with can probably trace their roots back to a time before the concepts of Jewish ethnicity and secular jew existed and as such have a judaist religious connection to some degree. So it's seem fair to say that most Judaism followers are jews who where born into the religion and who also identify as jews ethnically (as apposed to converts who may or may not also see themselves as jews ethnically). But I would be so quick to say that all people who call themselves jews consider judaism to be their religion as implied in the lead. Defining it as "The region of The Jewish People" sounds too much like "The religion of All Jewish People". Maybe saying "Judaism is the traditional religion of the Jewish People" sounds a little better to me since it allows for the possibility of ethnic Jews who no longer follow this tradition or identify as judaist in any way such as secular jews or jews that converted top other religions but who still identify as being part of the group "jewish People". --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the problem you have with the lead. First of all, with regards to the use of 'ethnoreligious:' the lead does not say exclusively ethnoreligious, which leaves the room for converts from other ethnic backgrounds. Secondly, "Messianic Jews" are Christians and there's no reason to cater to their distinct religious beliefs in the lead. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people, regardless of whether a particular Jew practises it or not. In much the same way that one might say French is the language of France even though a proportion of the population may not speak French. Personally, I don't regard converts away from Judaism to other religions as still being Jews (nor do I regard "Messianic Jews" as Jews), although I accept that they don't need to go through conversion if they wish to return to Judaism, provided they are otherwise Jewish. Judaism is the glue that has bound the Jewish people for millennia, and to relegate it to a religion amongst others of the Jews is intellectually dishonest. Île flottante (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying that Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people is a truism, like saying Germany is the homeland of the German people. If the article intended to say that Judaism was the religion of all Jewish people, surely in the past 17 years some editor or another would have made that change and that language would have been retained. I think most readers understand the difference between the two sentences. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I second MShabazz and Île flottante's respective remarks. There is no implied rejection or exclusion of converts in saying Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people; while conversion rates have risen in the last half century, for the majority of the Jewish people's and Judaism's existence(s), Jews have been endogamous and conversion either into or out of Judaism was rare. The article itself also makes it quite clear that conversion to Judaism is possible. Further, the ethnic component of Jewish identity is of primary importance to many Jews, and eliding Jews' status as an ethnoreligious group is inappropriate. Suggesting that Messianic "Jews" be included is entirely inappropriate. Lastly, I'm not sure what a "Judaist" is, but it's not a term that Jews use for ourselves. newmila (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference refurbishing
I dropped on this page by Citation Hunt and was originally only going to add some missing citations. By doing that I noticed that the citation method here is quite cumbersome and hard to navigate through. It was showing in the references themselves as there were already duplicates of the same citation under different tag. I know that this citation method was great in the beginnings of this page, but now with the visual editor it is completely out of date. It is not compatible with the visual editor, which is an easier way to add new data to the existing entries. Many people may want to add info to an entry (i.e. an ISBN number to a book or a DOI number to a publication) that they know, but will be discouraged to do so by the need of switching multiple times between visual and code editors. The same was with me. I added two missing citations in place of a "citation needed" tag. I used the visual editor's auto-reference utility and had to only add an URL of a website and everything was done automatically. One check of added data and it is done. I never ever thought about adding it the way it was already done and many others will do as I did. This may lead to a multitude of citation methods in one page. Then, what is my purpose of writing all of that? I thought that I could refurbish all of those citations to the new format that is compatible with the visual editor. At the same time I would check for any new data for the existing citations, find archives for those that need it and get rid of duplicates. I would also consolidate those references that are not completely duplicates but are citations from the same work, just the pages are different. There is a shorter form of doing that. For example a text using 2 references from the same book and one from another would look like this: This can be done by a simple template and the result is a clear and nice citation list. Before I would start refurbishing the citations I would like to know the opinion of other people contributing to this page about my plans. --Light Code (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sample text says that one[1]:23 and two[1]:56 exist, yet other texts state differently[2]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
you have words spelled wrong 209.34.122.4 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

edit request 15 January 2020
Is there a reason that the "tefillin" link under the picture of "A reform woman prays while wearing tallit and tefillin traditionally reserved for men" links to the "tefillin Barbie" page instead of just the tefillin page? seems odd to me. 2600:8805:9202:3300:C0B2:867D:DB97:607C (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That must be because of this edit. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Do parts need citations?
I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so I don't fully understand it but some parts like Antiquity has no citations, only links to other articles which I don't believe counts. Is that how it's supposed to be? Imnotverycreaatiivee (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction required in Islam and Judaism
It states: Dhimmis were allowed to practice their own religions and administer their own internal affairs, but they were subject to certain restrictions that were not imposed on Muslims.[147] For example, they had to pay the jizya, a per capita tax imposed on free adult non-Muslim males,[147] and they were also forbidden to bear arms or testify in court cases involving Muslims.

Then it later states: Jews in Muslim countries were not entirely free from persecution—for example, many were killed, exiled or forcibly converted in the 12th century...

This is nonsensical. It states how Jews were persecuted by Muslims, then states Jews were not entirely free from persecution as they were also killed sometimes, implying that the previous persecution is not in fact persecution.

A better statement would be: Jews in Muslim countries were not always able to live safely—for example, many were killed, exiled or forcibly converted in the 12th century... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.139.231 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Should Noahide (B 'nei Noah movement) section be included in the article?
There is disagreement over the inclusion of this section. I am requesting input. Editor2020 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure, but it is incorrect to say that it is a branch of Judaism as it says here and in the lead of the article. The references clearly say that the people are not-Jewish, and not sure how that makes it a branch of Judaism. It's just that Judaism believes that non-Jews should practice the seven laws of Noah, that doesn't make it part of Judaism. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is Judaism's instructions for non-Jews. Since this article is not about "Jews" but about "Judaism", this is relevant, and omitting it would leave out an important detail about Judaism from this article. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorse It is derived, separate and dependent upon Judaism, unlike the great religions, which are derived, separate and independent. Havradim (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

History: Origins section contains no relevant information; needs to be deleted and rewritten
The history: origins section should be completely deleted and rewritten. Right now, it is just a summary of current Jewish beliefs and contains no information about the origins of Judaism (seems like a WP:POV problem). A proper "Jewish origins" section would not summarize current beliefs, but would explain how the belief system evolved over time, starting at least as early as the polytheistic "Monarchic period Yahwism" like the Origins of Judaism article does, then explain how that system transformed into Judaism as it exists today. At its core, this section should be a summary of the Origins of Judaism article (particularly since the section says it is the main article and gives a link to there), yet none of the relevant information from the Origins of Judaism page appears here. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Jewish Virtual Library
There is an RFC on Jewish Virtual Library. Which is a source in nearly 1,000 articles. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Jewish_Virtual_Library

--2604:2000:E010:1100:49CD:C218:4104:8D78 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Christianity and Nazism"
Can someone remove the agenda biased paragraph? i'm talking about this: "Christianity was originally...though a Christian belief in dual-covenant theology emerged as a phenomenon following Christian reflection on how their theology influenced the Nazi Holocaust.[135]" I'm not Christian myself and I can see the bias and hatred behind those lines. Not professional and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:FC4F:E94:F3C3:D534 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no bias or hatred in that section. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Jacobs as a source for an absurdity
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Joseph_Jacobs_1919._Valid_source_for_an_exceptional_claim any passing editor would catch as nonsense. See and comment here if you are not happy with the excision]. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Construal.
"Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. Historically, all or part of this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period;"

"Rabbinic Judaism, the normative form of Judaism that developed after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem (ad 70). Originating in the work of the Pharisaic rabbis, it was based on the legal and commentative literature in the Talmud, and it set up a mode of worship and a life discipline that were to be practiced by Jews worldwide down to modern times." "Even today the various Jewish groups—whether Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform—all claim direct spiritual descent from the Pharisees and the rabbinic sages. In fact, however, many developments have occurred within so-called normative or Rabbinic Judaism. In any event, the history of Judaism can be divided into the following major periods: biblical Judaism (c. 20th–4th century bce), Hellenistic Judaism (4th century bce–2nd century ce), Rabbinic Judaism (2nd–18th century ce), and modern Judaism (c. 1750 to the present)."
 * The Enc.Brit has two articles, one on (a) Judaism, the other on (b) Rabbinic Judaism. The former encompasses the latter, rabbinic Judaism being a subset of Judaism, for a simple reason: Judaism began several hundred years before rabbinic Judaism, which, yes, became overwhelmingly the dominant form of Judaism. Neither of those articles supports the incoherent synthesis we have here. So what we have is a numbskulled piece of WP:OR posing as reliably sources. I.e.

Editors considering to revert, please note: there is no mention here of the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism in the Second Temple period challenging the Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism. Those two entries, if anything, support exactly my contention.


 * The sentence we have, however, uses a definition of rabbinic Judaism to define Judaism, the subset defines the category of which it is part - which is logically inept and causes a chronological disturbance. Judaism however predates Rabbinic Judaism. Before Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. for several hundred years, members of Judaic communities did not necessarily subscribe to the later notion of the oral Torah.


 * This confusion creates the problem in the second sentence. Having set out Rabbinic Judaism's two defining tenets (a)Written Torah and (b) Oral Torah, we are told that this assertion was challenged by the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period. The Second Temple period predates (see any authority) Rabbinical Judaism.


 * You cannot write that these two groups challenged tenets of a movement that postdates by some centuries their own activities and existence.


 * What the author(s) presumably wanted to say was: Of the several sects of Judaism in the Second Temple period, the Pharisees emerged after the destruction of the Temple, establishing two principles for Judaism, the two defining the emergent Rabbinic Judaism, that were to become normative for the following 2 millennia (and which the whilom Sadducees certainly opposed. They were literalists, and disliked leeway for glossing the Torah to create margins for inventive interpretation that in turn were invested with divine authority). If that wholly acceptable idea is what was meant, one should write it, and not the sentences we have, which are historically counterfactual.Nishidani (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That means that, before the establishment of Rabbinic Judaism the Sadducees and Hellenistic Jews opposed its central thesis. Nishidani (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as you know very well from the IP area, we go by RS. the EB is a RS. That is why I reverted you. Please try to be civil and don't bring your antagonistic behavior we know all too well from the IP conflict area into this area. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer. it is just a reaffirmation of your view I am given to antagonism which I now politely understand to be a synonym for 'interested in current and recent scholarship'.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of the supposedly problematic section of the article appears incorrect. I would suggest reading it again and trying to see where you’re going wrong. Île flottante (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If neither of you have any knowledge of Judaism other than that garnered from the Encyclopedia Britannica and torah com, and have difficulties construing sentences, then obviously it is pointless expecting you to grasp anything here. Yawn. Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Judaism on Education
Could we include the role of Jewish organizations in Judaism? Orthodox Union, Aish HaTorah, Chabad and Rohr JLI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamreinman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2014 November 16 (UTC)

Does this line makes sense?
"Much of their work has one unrecognized, but two who will never forget them are Max Krakauer and his wife." Can someone explain it or fix this if wrong? Angus1986 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the text of the source given it's a typo, "one" should be "gone". Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020
percent of ppl who are jewssh 174.60.14.255 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Add "Criticism" Section
There are criticism sections on the Christian and Islamic Wikipedia pages, so to be consistent it would be appropriate to add one here. There is an individual page for it which could be linked.Boris J. Cornelius (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Should be linked. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Judaism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:D00:1920:1D01:4AA8:7F8F:9943 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Moshe La Khaim Eche Laerry La Jewess" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Moshe La Khaim Eche Laerry La Jewess. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the page for speedy deletion under G10 or A7, as hate speech . As a brand-spanking new admin, you could do the honors... Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In my RFA, I promised not to engage in CSD deletions until I had demonstrated more familiarity with it, as CSD is my weakest area. So I think it's best for me to recuse on the admin action here. Hog Farm Talk 07:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for keeping to your pledge. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello. So even if infobox is not added by blocked sock puppet user Eliko007, I am pretty sure and by checking edit history of this article I can confirm it, it didn't existed before. Infoboxes get mixed responses so it is the best to be case to case discussion about it. In general, about complex topic's I am against to there is infobox. Here too. It can create even bigger confusion, synthesis of published material, original research, cherrypicking sources and it is often under attacks and vandalism. So per MOS:INFOBOXUSE policies here never was any discussion about adding it and lets see should be added. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the infobox. Get a consensus here before removing it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea, arguments at talk page and consensus about usefulness of change of long standing lead as per MOS:INFOBOXUSE. That change wasn't discussed. And as I saw, it is good to changes of lead, and for example adding some infobox are previously discussed. Blocked editor got pretty fast included in stuff about that infobox, and even I tried to fix it. So lets back to the arguments, if it is useful to have a infobox or no... as it is removed from Rastafarianism to Haitian vodou articles (And not just about to it is added by blocked editor, but about to changes should be discussed first). Lets see. I really don't want to get included in some edit wars or so, I opened talk page discussion as per policies, of changing of long-standing lead in this article. Hmmmmmm But I am thinking, lets stay for now. Judaism has a clear defined structure. Less confusion etc. I will restore it (if some other editors think to should be removed it will be, but for now lets stay). AnAnicolaidis (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good solution let stays for now. I expect this article with infobox looks more fundamental. And if will problem about some problematic parts, like the founder or time if founding, just may be addition "(according to tradition)" and so forth. DayakSibiriak (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
WAS:  "...influenced later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam and the Baháʼí Faith.[29][30] "

SHOULD BE:  "...influenced later Abrahamic religions, including Christianity and Islam.[29][30]

NOTE:  I believe the Wikipedia entry on the Baha i Faith shows that it is not an Abrahamic religion. Jimwilderco (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done: The body of the article does not talk about it's influence on the Baháʼí Faith (though it has a whole section on Islam and Christianity), and a cursory glance of those sources would lead me to believe it's questionable if it's referenced in those sources in a way that would imply its notability, if it is even discussed in those sources at all. Regarding whether or not the Baháʼí Faith is Abrahamic, you might want to look here, it's certainly not uncontroversially incorrect but it's at the very least a controversial claim. Either way, unless others disagree, I think it makes the most sense just to remove it. Volteer1 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021
I want to add these titles to the general bibliography:


 * Michael Tilly, Burton Visotzky: »Judaism I: History« (= Religionen der Menschheit. Vol. 27,1), W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2021, ISBN 978-3-17-032579-1.
 * Michael Tilly, Burton Visotzky: »Judaism II: Literature« (= Religionen der Menschheit. Vol. 27,2), W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2021, ISBN 978-3-17-032583-8.
 * Michael Tilly, Burton Visotzky: »Judaism III: Culture and Modernity« (= Religionen der Menschheit. Vol. 27,3), W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2020, ISBN 978-3-17-032588-3. Briumi (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please get consensus to add these before requesting an edit. On that vein, what do people think about adding these to the article's bibliography? I have no idea if these books are notable, legitimate or anything else. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All three books seem to have been just published (2021!). I would like to wait a bit, get these red links possibly turned to blue somehow, and have at least a short review of each one at hand, before adding them so fast. warshy (¥¥) 00:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Books in the bibliography should only be those used in building the article. If these are added, if would have to be as "Further reading". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bookfinder lists no books with the ISBN 978-3-17-032588-3, given for the 3rd volume.  Still to be published?  Also, the two published books appear to be written in German, and would not be appropriate for adding to "Further reading" on the English-language Wikipedia.  It's one thing to use other language sources in building an article, it's another entirely to reccommend to English speakers an other-language book to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Secular Judaism comes too short in lead
Hardly mentioned, and millions are part of it. Arminden (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Nomination
As far as I can tell, the article was previously delisted as a Good Article because of a lack of inline citations, instead using references. This problems seems to be largely fixed by now, 13 years later. While I do understand that the guidelines have shifted since then (this article might still be unstable), I do think it's worth a shot at nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GANI, editors who are not significant contributors to an article are supposed to consult on this talk page with those who are prior to making a nomination, not when doing so. I'll be reverting your nomination until the consultation concludes with a consensus one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, interesting timing. Right now, its Passover... the central act of identity and salvation in Judaism. I am happy to take a look over the next day or so. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * quasi-orthodox jews are mysterious that way :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging
 * On sources. The article is full-filled with refs to self-published personal sites like "Judaism 101". While you all know about Judaism, there are quite many academic papers out there. I've corrected the situation in the Jewish Religious Movements page, and started here too, but the edit was rolled back. I didn't try for replacing sources anymore. As it stands, the article is ugly sourced, i.e. unsourced. But text is not bad. DayakSibiriak (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wanted to update the article history and just a bit confused. It passed GA in 2006 and was delisted in 2007. It has been delisted again now. When between 2007 and now did it become a good article? It seems to have been nominated in March but then reverted, but I can't find any other reviews. Aircorn (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Short description
I shortened the short description per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Christian missionary pretending to be a rabbi
Is this WP:UNDUE?Editor2020 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, very definitely. If every story that made it to the news that in some way or another involved a rabbi was added to this article, it would have thousands and thousands of sections. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed for violating talk page guidelines. AmericanHistory.exe (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor152.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In what way did modern Judaism develop from yawism in 500 bc?
This seems misleading and pretty much just completely wrong and inevitable l unnecessary in the wiki page. ThisIsTheTown (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears to be sourced to a reliable source, with additional sources referenced at the main article Origins of Judaism. If you have reliable sources that says that is wrong and think additional sources should be added to either article, please raise it at Talk:Origins of Judaism.  If this is more you disagree with the reliable sources and want it to be removed, I'm afraid that is not a valid policy for removal of content. Singularity42 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Memberfigure
Only 15 Millionen, i can hardly beliebte that: we.neeed another source Lovemankind83 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two independent sources already in the article lede. Are you saying we need more?  Or that there are conflicting sources? Singularity42 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Zeex.rice, please don't undo my undo
Dear Zeex.rice,

I undid your edit as abrahamic != monotheistic in some (fringe) cases. This made the inclusion of stating "Judaism is monotheistic" everything but redundant. You removed that,and I undid your removal. Now, I invite all readers to publicly dispute or confirm the justice of my edit. Thank you for reading. Braggy (talk;contributions) 19:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello BragmArcus, what I have been getting at is that the Abrahamic religions are defined as monotheistic (The Abrahamic religions are a group of monotheistic religions that endorse worship of the God of Abraham. These most notably include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as the Baháʼí Faith, Samaritanism, the Druze, and others. The namesake for this group's identity is Abraham, a Hebrew patriarch and prophet). Christianity is also defined as monotheistic (and was prominently described as such in a similar fashion before I brought the uniform description to its page as well as that of Islam's). Those "fringe" cases of Christianity that you stated made it polytheistic can be specified on the article for Christianity itself, but the religions that are centred around the God of Abraham are universally defined as monotheistic. Best, ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer.
 * I didn't know that the Abrahamic religions are per definition (according to the Wikipedia article) monotheistic! That's a far better point than I was expecting (that honestly says more about me than about you).
 * Maybe it's an idea for one of us to edit the page on abrahamic religions to not include monotheism in the definition, as I've seen religions that aren't monotheistic, but by all means should count as Abrahamic (i'm talking about christianities here).
 * Thank you for your reply, and I'm waiting to hear from you, Braggy (talk;contributions) 20:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. However, it would be better if you take care to further expand (in both the Abrahamic religions and Christianity articles) what strains of Christianity qualify as polytheistic—with adequate and reliable sources of course. A significant amount of sources that define Christianity as polytheistic are inherently POV due to their association with an agenda (i.e. some Jewish and Islamic sources), and therefore cannot be used to help define Christianity on Wikipedia. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of Monotheism all over as per. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, and I'm waiting to hear from you, Braggy (talk;contributions) 20:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. However, it would be better if you take care to further expand (in both the Abrahamic religions and Christianity articles) what strains of Christianity qualify as polytheistic—with adequate and reliable sources of course. A significant amount of sources that define Christianity as polytheistic are inherently POV due to their association with an agenda (i.e. some Jewish and Islamic sources), and therefore cannot be used to help define Christianity on Wikipedia. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal of Monotheism all over as per. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)