![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Although Eisenmenger is frequently attacked, I have seen notable Jewish authors laud his writings as the most profound expressions of Judaism they had ever have seen.
There is also an in depth rebuttal to all the apologia in this article here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25873220/Judaism-Discovered
I don't have the time to rewrite the entire article, but I leave that link available for interested parties.
IP 62.25.109.197: I've researched David Bar-Hayim's views more, and you were correct to remove mention of him from the article. Thanks for finding that mistake. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The pen-ultimate line mentions that "Although later Jewish religious texts explicitly prohibit stealing from non-Jews, as in Tosefta Baba Kamma". Tosefta pre-dates the Talmud. Chesdovi ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I un-did a change that added some "dogma" text into the "out of context" sentence in lead. Perhaps it is good material, but it was not worded well, and I could not understand what it was saying. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Chesdovi: do you have a source for Eisenmenger "distortions and errors"? The sources Ive seen suggest that his translations were precise and accurate, but that he tended to be selective in his presentation, and often omitted (perhaps deliberately) balancing quotes (or quotes that would put the negative material in context). Perhaps you intended your material to go in the sections about Rohling or Pranaitis? Rohling and Pranaitis have been accused, so say the sources, of fabricating quotes from the Talmud. -- Noleander ( talk) 04:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Criticisms should be limited to what the Talmud actually states, rather than also including criticims which are based not on the actual text itself, but on various peoples understandings of the passages. How Judy Wenger wishes to intepret Niddah is up to her. Her conclusion is not apparent in the text itself which mentions nothing of man's relationship with God. It is a personal and streched implication to say that it does. Does it belong here? Chesdovi ( talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it needs to be emphasised then. Regarding Wengers OR: Crtisicm should be limited to where actual Talmudic phrases are criticsied for their plain meaning. But where issue is not taken with the simple meaning of the text at face value, but with interpretations not inferred openly by the text, these are not best placed here. Wegners thesis can possibly be placed at Jewish feminism or something. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Here she is not attacking the role of women or oppressive tactics against them. She suggests that the passage insinuates women are not able to have a spiritual connection or relationship with God. (Patent nonsense if you ask me.) Chesdovi ( talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What are the best titles for the sections:
There is a tree-organization there: the section "Contents concealed from non-Jews" is about all concealing/prohibition, etc. But that there are two specific aspects of it that are very prominently discussed by the critics: (1) the death penalty; and (2) revisions/alterations to the Talmud text. So those latter two are subsections. The new subsection title "Non-Jews prevented from studying Jewish law" doesn't seem to accurately describe the topics that those critics are discussing, and in fact is very nearly the same as the higher level title "Contents concealed from non-Jews". -- Noleander ( talk) 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The image File:Eisenmenger Entdecktes Judenthum cover.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Mash358: I see you've removed this material twice. What is your concern about the material? There is quite a bit of well-sourced material on the alleged discriminatory passages in the Talmud. Do you think it should be in its own article? Or a section in this article? Or do you think it is not related to the Talmud? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have read on an Islamic website a defense of Islamic marriages that occur before the attainment of puberty. They justified themselves by pointing to the Talmud. According to these websites, Betrothal by Intercourse of a girl as young as three is listed in the Talmud. Are there any better sources for this? I do not see it mentioned here. Is it possible that there was a mistranslation or misrepresentation? I would hope to find a more impartial source before adding anything to this article.
Anymouse1 ( talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
because you can't just put an equality sign between "criticism of this book" and "antisemitic canard", that's pov pushing. Applying the same logic, we should normally place the category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in this article. But it's not placed there, so it shouldn't be here as well. Nor any other religion be linked with such categories, criticism is criticism. Userpd ( talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Having read the article, a more suitable title would be "Justifications for the Criticisms of the Talmud". This is because not one criticism goes without a justification, which distorts an article which seeks to highlight Criticisms of the Talmud. The article in an essay like fashion, mentions a criticism, then justifies it. Its not even sure whether this article is of any encyclopedic value. Discuss please. Thanks -- 94.195.194.144 ( talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire large detailed and well referenced article Criticism of the Talmud was deleted and redirected by editor "Steven J. Anderson" for no reason other than what appears to be the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on a previous editor's personality; this type of vandalism is not acceptable and certainly not reasonable or rational. The "redirect" took one to the Talmud page where none of the many detailed critiques are held, effective deleting the entire article Criticism of the Talmud for no valid reason.
The purpose of the article Criticism of the Talmud is because it's a very large subject with very many critics and cannot be squeezed into the Talmud page as some minor blip of a subheading. This is also why there is a separate detailed Criticism of the Bible article, and also a separate detailed Criticism of the Qur'an article. I have reverted it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.marshall3 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 September 2011
If the redirect is reverted back to being the old, dubious article again, without consensus on this page, I'll protect it against editing and seriously consider blocking the editor who does it, for edit-warring. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Although Eisenmenger is frequently attacked, I have seen notable Jewish authors laud his writings as the most profound expressions of Judaism they had ever have seen.
There is also an in depth rebuttal to all the apologia in this article here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25873220/Judaism-Discovered
I don't have the time to rewrite the entire article, but I leave that link available for interested parties.
IP 62.25.109.197: I've researched David Bar-Hayim's views more, and you were correct to remove mention of him from the article. Thanks for finding that mistake. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The pen-ultimate line mentions that "Although later Jewish religious texts explicitly prohibit stealing from non-Jews, as in Tosefta Baba Kamma". Tosefta pre-dates the Talmud. Chesdovi ( talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I un-did a change that added some "dogma" text into the "out of context" sentence in lead. Perhaps it is good material, but it was not worded well, and I could not understand what it was saying. -- Noleander ( talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Chesdovi: do you have a source for Eisenmenger "distortions and errors"? The sources Ive seen suggest that his translations were precise and accurate, but that he tended to be selective in his presentation, and often omitted (perhaps deliberately) balancing quotes (or quotes that would put the negative material in context). Perhaps you intended your material to go in the sections about Rohling or Pranaitis? Rohling and Pranaitis have been accused, so say the sources, of fabricating quotes from the Talmud. -- Noleander ( talk) 04:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Criticisms should be limited to what the Talmud actually states, rather than also including criticims which are based not on the actual text itself, but on various peoples understandings of the passages. How Judy Wenger wishes to intepret Niddah is up to her. Her conclusion is not apparent in the text itself which mentions nothing of man's relationship with God. It is a personal and streched implication to say that it does. Does it belong here? Chesdovi ( talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well it needs to be emphasised then. Regarding Wengers OR: Crtisicm should be limited to where actual Talmudic phrases are criticsied for their plain meaning. But where issue is not taken with the simple meaning of the text at face value, but with interpretations not inferred openly by the text, these are not best placed here. Wegners thesis can possibly be placed at Jewish feminism or something. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Here she is not attacking the role of women or oppressive tactics against them. She suggests that the passage insinuates women are not able to have a spiritual connection or relationship with God. (Patent nonsense if you ask me.) Chesdovi ( talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
What are the best titles for the sections:
There is a tree-organization there: the section "Contents concealed from non-Jews" is about all concealing/prohibition, etc. But that there are two specific aspects of it that are very prominently discussed by the critics: (1) the death penalty; and (2) revisions/alterations to the Talmud text. So those latter two are subsections. The new subsection title "Non-Jews prevented from studying Jewish law" doesn't seem to accurately describe the topics that those critics are discussing, and in fact is very nearly the same as the higher level title "Contents concealed from non-Jews". -- Noleander ( talk) 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The image File:Eisenmenger Entdecktes Judenthum cover.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Mash358: I see you've removed this material twice. What is your concern about the material? There is quite a bit of well-sourced material on the alleged discriminatory passages in the Talmud. Do you think it should be in its own article? Or a section in this article? Or do you think it is not related to the Talmud? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have read on an Islamic website a defense of Islamic marriages that occur before the attainment of puberty. They justified themselves by pointing to the Talmud. According to these websites, Betrothal by Intercourse of a girl as young as three is listed in the Talmud. Are there any better sources for this? I do not see it mentioned here. Is it possible that there was a mistranslation or misrepresentation? I would hope to find a more impartial source before adding anything to this article.
Anymouse1 ( talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
because you can't just put an equality sign between "criticism of this book" and "antisemitic canard", that's pov pushing. Applying the same logic, we should normally place the category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in this article. But it's not placed there, so it shouldn't be here as well. Nor any other religion be linked with such categories, criticism is criticism. Userpd ( talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Having read the article, a more suitable title would be "Justifications for the Criticisms of the Talmud". This is because not one criticism goes without a justification, which distorts an article which seeks to highlight Criticisms of the Talmud. The article in an essay like fashion, mentions a criticism, then justifies it. Its not even sure whether this article is of any encyclopedic value. Discuss please. Thanks -- 94.195.194.144 ( talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire large detailed and well referenced article Criticism of the Talmud was deleted and redirected by editor "Steven J. Anderson" for no reason other than what appears to be the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on a previous editor's personality; this type of vandalism is not acceptable and certainly not reasonable or rational. The "redirect" took one to the Talmud page where none of the many detailed critiques are held, effective deleting the entire article Criticism of the Talmud for no valid reason.
The purpose of the article Criticism of the Talmud is because it's a very large subject with very many critics and cannot be squeezed into the Talmud page as some minor blip of a subheading. This is also why there is a separate detailed Criticism of the Bible article, and also a separate detailed Criticism of the Qur'an article. I have reverted it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.marshall3 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 September 2011
If the redirect is reverted back to being the old, dubious article again, without consensus on this page, I'll protect it against editing and seriously consider blocking the editor who does it, for edit-warring. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)