Talk:Judaism/Archive 5

categories
Why do I have to go into the category "judaism" to look for other religions for comparative purposes? I wanted to find the dates for the oldest extant documents from each religion but couldn't directly click on a category link to find a list of other religions. It would be like reading about "New Jersey" then having to click on a category called "New Jersey" to find "New York", instead of clicking on the category "U.S. states". It wasn't obvious to me to click on "Category:Judaism" to find "Zoroastrianism". Does anyone agree or disagree? Please leave a message here.

first/oldest monotheistic religion
Is this exactly accurate? Is it more accurate to say 'oldest existing monotheistic religion', or 'oldest existing major monotheistic religion'? (Not rhetorical questions, I really am not certain). Relatedly, does anybody have the will and the competence to tackle the other monotheistic religions, sects, cults, etc. of the early period and how they may (or may not) have influenced the development of Judaism? Gzuckier 20:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the Egyptian monotheistic cult of Aten older? The early Jewish beliefs from that period of time were not even strictly monotheistic. Ausir 18:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought it was well-established that Zoroastrism predates Judaism... Luis Dantas


 * Isn't Zoroastrism dualistic instead of monotheistic? Ausir 18:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It would not be accurate to label Judaism as the oldest Monotheistic belief system. There were other monotheists at the time the Torah was given.--Josiah 18:28, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit should definitely be changed. Ausir 18:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While it might not be accurate to label it the oldest monotheistic system, it is the oldest still living monotheistic religion. Zoroastrism is not proven to predate it. Abraham is thought to have lived between 2000 and 1500 BCE, while Zoroastrism failed to become monotheist until some time between 1600 BCE and 600BCE. - SF2K1

Beit Din
This comment is moved here from Talk:Jews

How about a section detailing the Beit Din system. Also at least a little section listing the different sects, within Chareidi, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. like for example Chabadnik,


 * Warning: JOKE Chabad: the religion most similar to modern Judaism. Sorry, couldn't resist it.Gzuckier 20:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Netzarim, Humanistic etc. And since some of these sects are considered apostate by the orthodox, why not also mention the apostate Messianics too? (Before anyone else accuses me of being Messianic, I do NOT believe in any kind of Chstian displacement theology nor do I acknowledge the legitimacy of their so-called divinity G-zus. I am however in favour of absolute neutrality in reportage). Also a little section discussing the steps towards conversion as Bnei Noach, Noachide, (Chassidic Gentiles), Ger Toshav, and the Ger Tzedeq. Zestauferov 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov 11:43, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews too. It is the first I have ever heard of them! This entry surely is the place to inform the casual reader about which forms of Judaism are considered Jewish and which are considered apostate. Zestauferov 08:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Criticism
'''Editorial Reviews From Booklist: Israel Shahak, who came to Israel in 1945 after surviving the concentration camp in Belsen during the Holocaust, contends that the potential for Israel's right-wing Jewish religious movements to seize power represents a threat to the peace of Israel and to the Zionist movement. He posits that Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other people and states in the Middle East. Shahak, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, condemns what he sees as discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel. The real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism, which must include the critique of the Jewish past. Most disturbing, Shahak insists that the religion, in its classical and talmudic form, is "poisoning minds and hearts."
 * Home Page of "Jew Watch" The "anti-Jewish" critics of past and of current "Jewish/Zionist" Supremacism ]
 * Judaism and Jewish Apologetics - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org
 * Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993
 * David Duke's critical historical analysis of "Jewish Supremacy" and its impact on the modern world
 * http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years]

This controversial attack of Israel by a Jew is bound to alarm Jewry worldwide. George Cohen --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.'''

REVISED CRITICAL LINKS:


 * Freud's criticism of the ancient origins of Judaism and how it de-evolved away from the original ethical Judaism also later advocated by the prophets
 * Jews as a chosen people
 * Jewish ethnocentrism
 * David Duke's critical historical analysis of "Jewish Supremacy" and its impact on the modern world
 * Anti-Semitism
 * http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html Judaism and Jewish Apologetics] - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org
 * Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993
 * http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years]

First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article. It is appropriate for another article. Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here. If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to yo; if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic. Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context. Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google. So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article. Period. If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. Slrubenstein

"First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict."

There is nothing "red-herring" about this conflict, whatsoever. It is at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish vs Non-Jewish relations.

"I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article. It is appropriate for another article."

That is only your own pov opinion.

"Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here."

Again, on the contrary, as it is actually at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish verses Non-Jewish relations.

"If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to you;"

Let me hear your explaination to understand as to why it is "unproductive".

"if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic."

No one is actually "clouding" any issues, except for you, in your falsely calling any such valid criticisms as being "Anti-semitism", which it obviously and clearly and factually is not.

"Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context."

The context only being that very many people consider it worthy enough and google does rank it according to how many people link to it and reference it.

"Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google."

That is only your own pov opinion, as is your pov slander of "Anti-semites".

"So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article. Period.  If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. Slrubenstein"

You and your ilk falsely labeling any "criticism" of Judaism as ONLY being "anti-semitic" is what is actually a "red-herring" and is deliberately and falsely and hypocritically being used only to "cloud the issues" and to limit any productive debate and to avoid anyone actually getting to the real root of any such issues and solving these problems and relations. Those that suffer from such psychological projections should "GO AWAY!" and for the sake of World Peace.-PV


 * What makes you think that the judaism article is unique in being able to remain w/o criticism? You point about palistinians and such is valid. Your second point is flat out wrong, period. Sam Spade 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. One can criticize things that people say, and things that people do, but to criticize a whole people is racist. You also seem to be wilfully misunderstanding my point. The link that I and others have been deleting is blatantly anti-semitic. Slrubenstein


 * Will it be acceptable if it is labelled as anti-semitic? Sam and Paul, would you accept this label if they keep the link? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Put it in the article on anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein


 * So, you don't find it to be acceptable criticism. Worth a thought, anyway. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * How would you define acceptable criticism? (I'm on neither side of this but looking for the boundaries.) - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, there is acceptable criticism within the community -- for example, debates between Orthodox and Reform Jews. There have been debates between Judaism and other religions, though not -- to my knowledge -- recently (e.g. debates between Jews and Christians in the Roman and Middle ages). There are other "criticisms" that I canimagine are legitimate, but may not belong in this article -- for example, secular humanist Jews may have criticisms of Judaism (I hesitate only because their criticisms are probably criticisms of all religions, and would be more appropriate linked to a religion article). There are other criticisms that are legit but definitely belong on another page -- for example, criticism of Israeli policies (the wall, the settlements, second class citizenship of Israeli Arabs, and so on) that belong on the Israel page (many Jews, most Jews, are not Israeli and these policies that are being criticized are not strictly "Jewish"). Completely unacceptable criticisms would be anti-Semitic slurs like "The Jews control Hollywood" or "The Jews control the banks." These slurs are no more acceptable than racist slurs against Blacks would be, especially when linked to a page on African-Americans! Slrubenstein


 * Not referring to the links in question, I can see plenty of non-Jewish criticisms that would belong here. You do not need to be of a religion in order to have valid criticisms.  In fact, I would think that a balanced article would need criticisms from outside the object in question.  (Atheist analysis, perhaps.)  I do agree with you that slurs and slandar alone are not criticisms.  Since this page is on Judaism I am sure that there are non-Jewish criticisms that belong in the critics section.  (The current links aside) can you tell me that there could never be a non-Jewish criticism that would belong on a Judaism article?  Are you of the opinion that only Jews can criticize Judaism?  If so, we will have some issues on an Islam article. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 18:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not think that only Jews can criticize Judaism. But since Jews have been in a minority for (with the exception of a couple of hundred years, and, since 1949, Israel) most criticism of Judaism has occured in a political context of oppression. One cannot evaluate a criticism against Judaism without being clear about what motivates it (I think this is generally true of course). It is very important to distinguish between such criticism and other criticisms. Also, there is a crucial difference between Judaism on the one hand and Christianity and Islam on the other -- a difference that, while fundemental to Christianity, is nevertheless one that many people who grow up in a Christian society find hard to understand. Judaism is, as Paul suggests, a religion of the flesh. It is not about what someone believes, or feels in one's heart, so much as belonging to the nation of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. (Atheism is not really a criticism of Judaism since one can be Jewish without believing in God, although this is admitedly rare. What are other "criticisms" you imagine?  That the Torah is not written by God?  Well, many Jews do not believe it was written by God, so this isn't a criticism of Judaism). It used to shock me when a Christian friend would explain that the child of a Christian is not automatically or necessarily Christian -- a child of a Jewish mother (and for some, a Jewish father as well) is autonatically Jewish, and stays so unless they consciously renounce being Jewish. In this sense, perhaps "criticisms of Judaism" is less like a criticism of Islam and more like a criticism of "Arabs." Slrubenstein


 * Good response. The last line is a good evaluator of criticism of Jews but not of Judaism. My understanding is that the term refers to the religion and now the people.  (Somehow the culture is in there but still this is really about the religion since you can be Jewish and not believe in Judaism.)  I have listed to a woman named Irshad Manji speak on Islam and her belief that the Quran was not written by God.  She has much to say about Jews that are not well received by Moslems and much against Israel that is well received.  Do you read criticisms from non-Jews?  Have you found any that are credible? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 19:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My main point is that the very nature of Judaism makes it difficult if not impossible to distinguish between "religion" and "ethnicity" -- concepts that are culture-bound, and meaningful in modern Western societies but not necessarily useful in other contexts. When you say that one can be Jewish and not believe in Judaism, I think you are applying a Platonic/Christian binary between being and believing. A male Jew is Jewish by virtue of circumcision -- this is not a volitional act by the circumcised person, and does not represent belief (although many Greek-influenced Jewish philosophers, like Paul, have suggested this -- my point is that the suggestion reflects Greek thought more than Jewish thought and has no basis in the Hebrew Bible). A secondary but still important point is that "criticism" has to be understood in context. Do I accept criticism by non-Jews? Well, I don't know why not -- but I woold need to know why they are making the criticism, and what the effect of the criticism might be. Of course I feel the same way about "praise" of Judaism. Surely you know many Jews and even many Zionists are skeptical if not suspicious of right-wing fundamentalist Christian support for Israel. And is the "criticism" really a criticism? As I said, most Jews would not take the statements "God does not exist" or "The Bible was not revealed by God" as criticisms of Judaism. Slrubenstein


 * I think its one thing to have *theological* or philosophical criticism of the Jewish religion (and this can be internal or external, I have no problem with a link from a Christian viewpoint arguing, for example, that the Jewish religion is wrong not to accept Christ etc or from a Islamic viewpoint arguing why Jews should accept Islam or why Jews should accept Buddah or what have you or a secular or athiestic viewpoint on why Jewish religious beliefs do not hold water). I think it's also valid to have criticisms, internal or external, say of the Haskalah and moves towards Jewish assimilation or criticisms of Jewish nationalism (though if it gets into Zionism it belongs in that article). But that's all quite different from anti-Semitic Jew-baiting or Jew-hatred, ie criticisms that have no scholarly or intellectual basis (or even factual basis) but are just propaganda attempts at spreading hatred against Jews rather than engaging in a serious debate on Jewish issues. Jew-Watch brings nothing to the debate, it is not "criticism" but abuse and vitriol and it is ridden with factual errors and distortions. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should list it in an article on Judaism as some sort of source of either information or criticism. If it belongs anywhere it's in an article on Anti-Semitism as an example of the practice. AndyL 21:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- although I do think that theological and philosophical critiques ought to be situated and contextualized. Slrubenstein


 * Thank you for the responses. I agree that jewwatch is inappropriate.  I am glad that critical links will remain.  I hope to see at least one more link that is truly critical of Judaism (not jews).  I think an internal criticism would be most appropriate. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 03:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

willful misunderstandings
Actually I didn't see the subtlety you were trying to get at, the distinction of race/culture vrs. religion/philosophy. Maybe you are right, and racial critisisms shouldn't be present in the form of external links, but rather a link to racism, or anti-semite, or whatever. It brings up a more important issue to me, which is 'are jews a race or a religion, or both?'. Every Jew I have ever known insists it is a religion, not a race, but then my jewish friends tend to pride themselves on their family 'going back' to moses, and so forth. Ethnic history/tradition is an important factor amongst jews. In summary, your view about the external link makes sense to me, so long as jews are to be viewed not as a religion, but as either as a race/ethnicity, or some conglomeration of race and religion, much like sikhs, jains, or hundu's. Regardless, critisism not based on race, but rather on religious doctrines should be present, altho I agree that is not what jew watch appears to be about, and despite its high google rating, it does seem to be a site of rather poor quality. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response -- I'm satisfied that we understand one another well enough to avoid conflict on the article. As for my subtle point -- well, let me put it this way: people studying people is not the same as people studying rocks.  When people study rocks it isn't hard for people to agree that rocks may be igneous, metamorphic, or sedementary.  But when people study people things are more complicated for two reasons.  First, unlike rocks, people have their own opinion of themselves.  Second, unlike the case with people studying rocks, the observer and the observed are both people.  You make this distinction between race/ethnicity and religion/philosophy.  I say that when you look at the authoritative Jewish texts, the Bible and the Talmud, you find no such distinction or basis for such a distinction.  It is a distinction foreign to Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism.  Why do you have this distinction?  I am not sure but I think it is a product of a number of forces, some old (Platonic dualism) and others recent (modernity -- see Weber and Habermas), but both Western.  You ask why some Jewish friends of yours insist that Judaism is a religion and not a race, and I repeat a commonplace I have repeated on other pages: you have to look at things in context.  How Jews talk about themselves today has a lot to do with the influence of Christianity ahd the Enlightenment (after the Enlightenment, Reform and Orthodox Jews claimed that Judaism is a religion in order to make themselves more intelligible to Europeans, and in order to make Judaism fit into modern life -- but this is a rather recent phenomenon).  It also has to do with the aftermath of the Holocaust: Hitler killed Jews because of their race so you can understand why some Jews today insist that they are not a race.  I am not saying that Jews are a race either, not in the modern sense -- because Jewish identity was forged in a very different context.  Also the meaning of race has changed.  Dio Cassius wrote that "I do not know the ofigin of this name (Jews) but it is applied to all men, even foreigners, who follow their customs.  This race is found among Romans."  Note that "belief" does not enter into it (so creed, dogma, theology and philosophy certainly are irrelevant).  But what does he mean by race here?  Certainly not what we mean today, since someone can convert to the Jewish race by following their customs.  As I said, Judaism developed before, and outside of, the Hellenic and Roman empires; even their ways of talking about people didn't apply well to Jews.  Actually, I thought most of this is discussed in the article on Judaism, and on Comparing and COntrasting Judaism and Christianity.  Or are you questioning the content of those articles?  Surely you read this article, before commenting on the talk page, right? Slrubenstein

The real "source" of "Anti-semitism" has been the "Mosaic Distinction" which has created an artificial "Jewish Identity" of "Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Language, and Culture" in one.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BMxhzp-iogEJ:www.rishon.com.ar/rishon/rice1.asp+Freud,+Moses+and+the+Religions+of+Egyptian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Anti-semitism" is the natural result of "Semitism" or "Jewishness" as a FALSE Identity, and which places ONLY JEWS as being the only TRUE HUMANS and as being the only "GOD's CHOSEN PEOPLE" and of being the only TRUE RELIGION and as being and having the only TRUE PERSONAL and TRIBAL "GOD":YHWH.

Hey Paul
You've got the wrong page, check these out


 * Jews as a chosen people


 * Jewish ethnocentrism


 * Anti-Semitism

the stuff your talking about here is better suited for these pages. p.s. be careful! Remember wikiquette and Civility. Sam Spade 18:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What Paul wrote is factually incorrect and anti-Semitic; there is no place for these comments on any page other than Anti-Semitism Slrubenstein

What was "factually incorrect" and "anti-Semitic" about what I wrote, Steve? What I wrote is factual and valid "criticisms" of the "false identity" that is "Judaism" and "Judaism" is the actual topic of this article and not "Anti-semitism", which is itself a misnomer.

"Normative inversion is central to Assmann's argument pertaining to another category that he introduces and that is the 'mosaic distinction.' Perhaps we should define the latter term first. When Moses created his new religion, or rather a reformulation and adaptation of Akhenaten's religion, he did everything possible to turn polytheism on its head. This 'distinction' was supposed to be the distinguishing element between true and false religion. In contrast to polytheism which was universal and prejudice-free, the Mosaic religion was absolute, exclusive, and intolerant of other religions and here, according to Assmann and many historians of the period of antiquity, lay the seeds of anti-Semitism."

The real "source" of "Anti-semitism" has been the "Mosaic Distinction" which has created an artificial "Jewish Identity" of "Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Language, and Culture" in one.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BMxhzp-iogEJ:www.rishon.com.ar/rishon/rice1.asp+Freud,+Moses+and+the+Religions+of+Egyptian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Anti-semitism" is the natural result of "Semitism" or "Jewishness" as a FALSE Identity, and which places ONLY JEWS as being the only TRUE HUMANS and as being the only "GOD's CHOSEN PEOPLE" and of being the only TRUE RELIGION and as being and having the only TRUE PERSONAL and TRIBAL "GOD":YHWH.

-PV

PS--And your obvious attempts to have me banned and censored is proof of your own lying hypocrisy and intolerance of any valid "criticisms" of Judaism as a "false identity" that is the root and source of "Anti-semitism", actually and more accurately, "anti-JEWISHNESS" as being a FALSE IDENTITY, and that is the real cause of "Hate" of any Non-Jews:

From: Fred Bauder  Subject: Re: Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:44:26 +0000

Believe it or not, it is best to request mediation on this matter with him, although I would vote to accept this matter for arbitration as it sits now (although I know certain other arbitrators would not).

Fred

From: "steven l. rubenstein"  public.gmane.org> Reply-To: English Wikipedia  public.gmane.org> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:04:58 -0400 To: wikien-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA  public.gmane.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism

Paul Vogel has been adding an anti-Semitic link to the Judaism page. I explained in detail on the talk page why I think this is inappropriate, and I deleted the link. Although some other users believe that such a link is acceptable as long as it is clearly identified, I think if Wikipedia is going to have any links to anti-Semitic material it should be on the anti-Semitism page.

In any event, after I explained why I deleted the link, Vogel responded, "Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.-PV " -- a response that ignored my explanation entirely.

I replied, "I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page. Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here."

And then Vogel made clear the anti-Semitic logic by which problems on the cosmotheism page are really "Jewish" problems: "Aren't you? Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk" is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-"

Do I need to explain my outrage? Vogel doesn't identify the people working on the cosmotheism as wikipedians but as "Jews." He doesn't identify me as a wikipedian but solely as a "Jew." And because I am a Jew, he holds me responsible for what other "Jews" have done on another site.

This use of "Jew" as a slur; the identification of my "ilk" as hypocrites, reeks of anti-Semitism. If this itself does not merit banning, I certainly think some strong action should be taken.

Thanks,

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 ---

"Outrage", indeed!

"Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by Marxist "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you?"

Of course, Steve hasn't.

"In contrast to polytheism which was universal and prejudice-free, the Mosaic religion was absolute, exclusive, and intolerant of other religions and here, according to Assmann and many historians of the period of antiquity, lay the seeds of anti-Semitism."

Nothing like selective "outrage" to reveal psychological projection and its typical "lying hypocrisy".-PV

PS--Here too!:

User:66.2.156.69 Anonymous troll vandalising Judaism, and Holocaust. Reverts etcAndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) Do we need to quickpoll this user? If he continues, I'd feel comfortable giving him a day off on my own discretion - and I suspect dozens of admins would agree with me. Pakaran. 03:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Pakaran. This is an IP user, and the activity seems to be simple vandalism that clearly violates NPOV. If the user continues I will ban the IPs for 24 hours and protect any of the pages if nessecary, such as the user coming back under another IP and re-editing the pages in question with the same vandalism. Seems a simple issue to me. --Flockmeal 03:17, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it this person had been blocked at one (or more) points for 24 hours with no effect. Now that it is clear that he is an anti-semite using Wikipedia as a platform to spread anti-semetic views, I believe his should be banned. His contributions to articles are at the very best contentious -- but usually they amount to no kmore than adding obscure and self-serving links to neo-nazi websites. On talk pages his anti-Semitism is clear. When I wrote, on the Judaism talk page, that a link to an anti-semitic site is inappropriate, he replied that people were placing inappropriate remarks on the cosmotheism page. This is very bad behavior at wikipedia -- no contributor should "punish" one page begause of something that happened on another page. More importantly, he is punishing me for what others have done, an example of collective guilt that makes perfect sense in his anti-semitism, but not in a wikipedia community. He practically said that Jews control wikipedia, which is a classic anti-semitic stance. I think he should be banned. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No change, no improvement. When is there going to be some action?AndyL 03:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Just ban this idiot. Don't go through quickpolls since this is unambiguous vandalism. And do it quick. Ban the IP before he/she gets a user name, which complicates things when we need to ban vandals. 172 20:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) I've just banned the IP. Along with hard-banned User:Zog, this Nazi scumbag has no place on WP. 172 20:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) This should not be the place to list vandalizing anons. I agree with 172. - T&#949;x&#964;ur&#949; 20:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) This user has not vandalized anything, only expressed a strong POV. silsor 20:43, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) I was not voting. Only agreeing that anon vandals should not be Quickpolled and should be banned. I haven't voted (and I don't even see anywhere to vote.) - T&#949;x&#964;ur&#949; 20:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Silsor, this user wasn't guilty of, say, childish Michael-style vandalism, but he/she's in league with other POV trolls/hard-banned vandals (e.g., JoeM and Zog) who couldn't function as constructive editors or writers on WP. 172 21:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) Vandalism is deliberate mischief, but it seems this user believes what s/he is writing. Antisemitism is not against any policy and neither is being "in league" (which I have not seen) with other people. I have reviewed all of this user's edits and I think we need to treat his/her POV in the same way we would treat any other user's POV. silsor 21:16, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

User:216.99.245.135 possibly same anonymous troll as 66.2.156.69. Same behaviour as above. AndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See my comment above. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Steve,

Stop deleting the valid links to "criticisms", http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Judaism&action=history just because you don't happen in your own pov to like them and do falsely call them "Anti-Semitic". Thanks! :D -PV

While I agree that there should be critical links to Judaism I do not agree with the extreme links being suggested by Paul. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why not?

You seem to agree with the "extreme" critical "links" to cosmotheism??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmotheism#Criticism If you allow these Jewish/Marxist slanderous "critical links" within the cosmotheism article, then, so should you allow my "critical links" to Judaism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Criticism both here and above and within that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cosmotheism -PV

Introduction
With reference to Lead section, I have moved the reference to the Jew article to a "disambiguation line" in italics and indented, and added a header for "introduction" to create a "lead section". Presently, this is small; perhaps the lead section should comprise 2-3 paragraphs, as suggested in Lead section. JFW | T@lk  16:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Imitatio dei
Can someone work a reference to Imitatio dei into the article? -- Itai 06:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links - too many?
Does this article really need all of its many external links? There seem to be too many: is it not in danger of turning into a link hub for all of Judaism? --138.37.188.109 08:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is a Criticism section necessary or appropriate?
I haven't found a Criticism links section in the articles about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. Why is one required for Judaism alone? Jayjg 00:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone suggests that. My rule of thumb is that critcism sections are needed in articles where it is possible to write one. I doubt you can find enough verifiable criticisms of sikhism to warrant a criticism section, but w christianity you prob could. Obviously Judaism has its share of critics, no one disputes that, do they? Sam [Spade] 00:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No one doubts that Judaism has its share of critics; in fact, one could quite plausibly argue that it has vastly more than its fair share. And indeed, that it the point; as far as I have been able to ascertain, only the Judaism article on Wikipedia has managed to attract its own special set of Criticism links, some leading to arguably anti-Semitic sources.  Regarding Sikhism, that too is interesting; one can find literally thousands of internet sites "criticising" Judaism (or more accurately, bizarre myths and beliefs about Judaism), but few or none about Sikhism, a religion with a comparable number of adherents.  Why is that?  One could claim that it is because Judaism is thousands of times more criticism-worthy than Sikhism, but I think the real answer is far more obvious.


 * This kind of "special treatment" of Judaism is all too common, and unless I were to see similar sections following all or even most other faith articles, I would quite rightly feel that these links are inappropriate. I wonder how long links critical of Islam would last on the Wikipedia article about it?  There are certainly enough webpages on the topic. Jayjg 03:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You see my opinion above, I would support you in placing such links on Islam, and oppose you in removing them here. IMO more links, not less, is whats best for a wiki. It's all about utility and useful info. Sam [Spade] 03:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * And you see my opinion above. It is apparent that the Wikipedia standard is to have no set of "Criticism" links following an article about a faith; rather, the links following a description of a religion are uniformly positive or neutral in nature.  The Judaism article should follow the Wikipedia standard, whatever it is, so as to be neutral. Jayjg 04:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * And by the way, more links is not the best way to go; if it was, then why did all those extra Lubavitch links keep getting deleted? The links in this article, as in all others, should be informative and balanced.  They don't need to be overwhelmingly comprehensive; 200 links is not better than 20, and 2000 better than 200.  Providing links to anti-Semitic tracts is not adding "utility and useful info" to a page about Judaism. Jayjg 14:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It would seem we disagree on the particulars. Sam [Spade] 14:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any "particulars" on which we disagree. Rather, I have pointed out that there is only a Criticism section for one religion on all of Wikipedia, and you seem to agree with that.  You also claimed that the more links the better, but this is clearly not a Wikipedia standard, or desired state.  It's pretty clear that the Criticism links section has been placed in the Judaism section for non NPOV reasons, and it needs to go.  I'll wait a little while to see if anyone else can come up with a good rationale for keeping the section; so far there has been none. Jayjg 15:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed criticism links. I had originally moved these to a seperate section because they were cluttering the general links area. If re-insertion of the books (and the ghastly infidels.org article) are deemed necessary, it would have to go with a nicely authored paragraph that details non-antisemitic intellectual criticism of Judaism. Such a paragraph would benefit all religion articles. JFW | T@lk  15:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The links in the Jew article seem better organized and more clear. Would it make sense to simply copy the religion links from there to here? Jayjg 17:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See: Neutral point of view. Hyacinth 19:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the wording of this "it is clearly POV to have a criticism section in Judaism but not in Christianity" is clear. Do you mean to say "it is clearly POV to have a criticism section in Judaism, but not in other faiths like Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism"?

The Jew article has better links on Judaism
The Jew article has better links on Judaism; should they just be copied to here? Jayjg 15:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is much too long.
As the Wikipedia warning that appears every time you try to edit this page correctly tells us, this article is far too long.

I just restored a chunk of text (on Israeli denominations) that was cut a couple of weeks ago but not put into the Jewish denominations article (as the note suggested it was). Nevertheless, I agree that the Judaism article is much too long and material should be cut drastically. Not by simply deleting it or even summarizing it in this article, but by moving it to more immediately relevant articles. I.e. by taking each long section, and replacing it with one or two general paragraphs containing links to the relevant articles that explore each issue in depth. Or even just a list of links. For instance: "Jewish denominations" could have one paragraph mentioning the major denominations (or perhaps one for diaspora and a second for Israel), or even just a list of them. --Dovi--

The Jewish Encyclopedia
The Jewish Encyclopedia has now passed into the public domain. Feel free to legally cut and paste to you hearts' content, for this or any other Judaism-related articles.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

Quadell (talk) 19:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't we know it :-( JFW | T@lk  21:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recently removed paragraph
I have removed this new paragraph:
 * Unlike most other identities (including other races and religions) Judaism is not a self-enclosed and bounded phenomenon (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity 243-244). During the Golden Age of German intellectualism, when religious prejudice came to be considered a mark of insufficient intellectual development although racism was still considered rational, an attempt was made to untie this knot in the case of the Jews, by referring to the religion as Judaism, the people as Palestinians, and opposition to the people (not the religion) as antisemitism, as can be seen in writings of the time by such as Kant. That use of the term Palestinian was adopted by European Zionists, largely nonreligious, who emigrated to the Holy Land, but has since fallen into disuse as the term is now almost invariably used to describe the Arabic residents of the region. The term antisemite, however, has survived mostly intact, although there is some debate today over whether it should be extended to other nations regarded as Semites.

The problem is that this new paragraph is a discursus which takes us far away from the main topic, onto a 100 year old terminology which had never been used previously, and has not been used since. This has no place in the main article on Judaism. The last two sentences are also highly problematic for other reasons. For one, there is no such thing as a Semitic people; this issue has been discussed endlessly on Wikipedia! (There are, of course, Semitic languages.) RK 01:22, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

OK; it's not my position, nor do I assume it's Wikipedia's, it was the response of German thinkers 100 years ago to the question posed above 'Is Judaism a religion or a people or what?' Gzuckier 02:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

monotheism
I reverted a recent change. Judaism is the first recorded monotheistic religion -- and the article explains, a little lower down, what the significance is. This is an uncontroversial fact that ought not to be deleted. It is possible that there were other monotheistic religions before Judaism, but we have no record of them -- which is why the fact is "recorded," not just the first monotheistic religion. This is an important fact, because in Judaism's own myth of itself, its rejection of non-monotheistic religions was central to its creation. The compartative study of ancient texts confirm this -- many of the changes the Biblical authors made to the myth of Utnapishtim, in writing the story of Noah and the flood, involved a shift from polytheism to monotheism. By the way, it is worth discussing changes before making them. Slrubenstein


 * Akhenaten's monotheistic cult of Aten is recorded, and it's older than monotheistic Judaism. It's been discussed at the top of this talk page. Ausir 20:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the earlier discussion -- usually the most recent talk is here at the bottom. In any event, most scholars do not consider the cult of Aten to be monotheistic. Akhenaten and his followers (who were few and for a short time -- I'd have no objection to saying that Judaism is the "first recorded example of an institutional monotheistic faith") admited to the existence of other gods and to polytheistic mythology, but elevated Aten as the chief god, to be worshiped independently of the established priestood. The article discusses the meaning of monotheism in its historical context in a later paragraph -- what was at stake in monotheism was not so much the number of Gods as the kind of relationship between God and people (see Kaufman's The Religion of Israel but there are lots of work on ancient neareastern scholarship and Biblical scholarship that make this point). Slrubenstein


 * In any event, Zoroastrism comes first or at the same time period. An absolute claim that "Judaism is the first recorded monotheistic religion" is just a POV.   – Kaveh (talk)   12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraphs Removed from Main Article
''Two things distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed. First, it was monotheistic. The significance of this belief is not so much the denial of other gods; although this element is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism, according to most critical Bible scholars the Torah often implies that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods. Rather, the significance lies in that Judaism holds that God created and cares about people. In polythestic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people. Second, the Torah specifies a number of laws to be followed by the Children of Israel. Other religions at the time were characterized by temples in which priests would worship their gods through sacrifice. The Children of Israel similarly had a temple, priests, and made sacrifices -&mdash; but these were not the sole means of worshipping God. In comparison to other religions, Judaism elevates everyday life to the level of a temple, and worships God through everyday actions.

By the Hellenic period, most Jews had come to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone), and that the record of His revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths. This attitude may reflect growing Gentile interest in Judaism (some Greeks and Romans considered the Jews a most "philosophical" people because of their belief in a God that cannot be represented visually), and growing Jewish interest in Greek philosophy, which sought to establish universal truths. Jews began to grapple with the tension between the particularism of their claim that only Jews were required to obey the Torah, and the universalism of their claim that the Torah contained universal truths. The result is a set of beliefs and practices concerning both identity, ethics, one's relation to nature, and one's relation to God, that privilege "difference" -&mdash; the difference between Jews and non-Jews; the differences between locally variable ways of practicing Judaism; a close attention to different meanings of words when interpreting texts; attempts to encode different points of view within texts, and a relative indifference to creed and dogma.''