![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Slrubenstein left this comment on my page:
To which I responded with:
He seems to be the only person arguing for this. Consensus was gained already. I'm not changing the article. The article already says Judaism is a religion numerous times in the article. I'm just making the intro reflect that so that it is in line with some of the other major religion articles. The user, Slrubenstien, continuously is inserting opinion in his argument, which is not what we're here for on wikipedia. I do believe his edits are in good faith, but he should look at the FACTS and consensus. This is just getting ridiculous. It's not a big issue considering the article says Judaism is a religion multiple times in other places and the Jew article already covers the ethnicity and culture of Judaism, even if Slrubenstien believes it doesn't. He keeps saying what he thinks the articles are about, but wikipedia already says what they are about and therefore the argument is moot. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You may indeed disagree Lisa, but I don't understand how my argument is not understood. It is logical in the extreme. First, a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of the word "religion". Fact. Second, in this article [Judaism] it says that "Judaism is a religion" numerous times in different ways (i.e. "Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still practiced", etc.). Fact. Thirdly, the people who are arguing that it should say "a set of beliefs and practices" want it to say this instead of "religion" because they believe the word "Judaism" also refers to a cultural and ethnic identity and not just a religious one. Fact. However, it clearly says in this same article [Judaism] in the first sentence on the page, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Fact. Even with that last point alone, my argument is clear and infallible. There is no logical argument that can be made against what I just said. I don't mean to sound arrogant. All I care about is that wikipedia is accurate and uniform as any encyclopedia should be. I'm not saying my opinions. Everything I pointed out is FACT. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Judaism, that is the Jewish religion. The other things are part of the Jewish identity, but not of Judaism. Debresser ( talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Judaism is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews." I would weigh that fact more heavily than most "facts" found on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would also help that during this discussion if users would state which intro they think should be the one used. Because, I could be mistaken, but most people seem to be saying "religion" is better but are arguing about other issues. Like Bus Stop and Debressor, who both make good arguments, seem to think the word "religion" in the intro sentence are satisfactory, but are arguing about some other intricacies on what should be incl. in the article, etc. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Debresser made a good point, too, when he said that this article is not about the Jewish identity but about the religion. I don't mean to sound like a prick or come off as insulting or something, but I really do not get why this is such a big deal. It's a really simple change, and yes, semantics is important and words mean a lot, even simple ones, but a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of "religion" and doesn't change the meaning. We all agree that Judaism covers a lot, like the religion itself and a certain identity that incl. an ethnicity and culture (Though doesn't Islam and Christianity cover that, too? Although some might argue to a lesser degree). We just can't seem to agree on what this article is specifically covering. Which I really don't see why there is any argument about that at all. This article doesn't cover the cultural or ethnic aspects of Judaism. The Jew article does. However, this article does mention Judaism as a religion about just 100 times over. One of the sections even says:("8 Judaism and other religions"). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Navnløs makes a number of claims: (1) that consensus was reached for his change; this is false, this discussion to which he refers took place after two people reverted his non-consensus edit. His original non-consensus edit was unilateral. If there was any discussion leading to a consensus prior to his edit would he please provide an edit diff? (2) That there is a consensus for his edit. False. There is at best some uncertainty about how the introduction reads, but several editors support it. That simply canot be discribed as a consensus for change. (3) that his edit is based on sources, not on his personal POV; this too is false, he has never provided any sources to support his edit. he has refered to inconsistencies in the article and between the article and disambiguation note. Knock-knock! Inconsistencies on the page are not what we mean by "sources" (please read WP:RS); they are inconsistancies and we certainly can discuss how to improve them. But Navnløs seems simply to be a POV-warrior. I do not know what deep insight into Judaism, or what kind of research, leads him to be so dedicated to his crusade to change the introduction, he has given no indication of any research at all, or any knowledge of Judaism beyond what he has read of an incomplete (I mean, unfinished) Wikipedia article. (4) that people who disagree with him are POV-pushers. I do not know if that is mere parroting, a knee-jerk and childish form of defense, or projection, but it is again simply false. He opens this section by posting a personal comment I made on his talk page, in which I informed him that i had posted reliable sources on this page! I provided a number of sources, and Malik Shabbazz just provided another, which once again makes the simple point that Judaism is a religion, and it is other things, i.e. it is more than a religion, which means that we need language that is inclusive of religion plus other things (like, philosophy and way of life, following EJ, or civilization or legal system, following others). But Navnløs has never responded to any discussion of sources. Apparently his ideal is to write an encyclopedia that is based not on knoweldge but ignorance. I really would much rather he read a few books.
Navnløs, everyone has responded to all of your points. You just are not listening. As Lisa says, do you just want us to post three times a day? Lisa says "squeaky wheel; I say a classic case of WP:DE; at least on her user page Navnløs identifies herself as a pirate who says "F you" to other users (yes, a joke very funny ha-ha).
This is a serious issue: I and others have suggested serious ways that this article can be improved. Navnløs, if you really wish to improve the article, you could really earn all of our thanks if you disd some research and added meaningful content to the body of the article. Here are specific areas where the article needs work: [1] and [2]. Why not do that?
So the "pirate" wants a compromise. But as many people have pointed out, the introduction to this article makes it very clear that Judaism is among other things a religion. The article identifies Judaism as a religion, it never says it is not a religion. All we have is one sentence that suggests that it is something bigger. How about this as a compromose: Navnløs, edit articles on topics you know about. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right, DE is at least premature. But he seems obsessed with this one issue and I do not unerstand why. If I had time now I would be working on the very improvements I suggest, but I really have RL to attend to. If there are editors with more time on their hands, I really wish they would focus on content. There really is so much more to Judaism and I wish this article did justice to it. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor, I guess. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I provide sources to support the consensus, and you accuse me of imposing my personal point of view (which I have never expressed). You do not provide any sources, and yet somehow this is not your own point of view? I just do not get that.
You say you do not make this personal, but you consider my supporting a longstanding consensus "ridiculous." And you say that my point about inconsistencies in the article is made "begrudgingly." How do you know my mental state? In fact, don't all Wikipedia articles, or virtually all, have inconsistencies? isn't this the inevitable consequence of articles being edited by thousands of people? I am not "admitting" anything, I am pointing out that your claim to be making a logical argument has no logic at all behind it.
When there is an inconsistency between two descriptions of an object, there is no "logical" solution to the problem. One has to ask which description is more accurate or in the case of Wikipedia more compliant with our policies, such as NPOV and RS. I and several others have argued that the language in the first paragraph is both more accurate and more inclusive of diverse views from reliable sources and thus in compliance with policy, moreso than the disambiguation tag. This is understandable as many people discussed and worked on the first paragraph of articles; disambiguation lines are written much more casually. In this case, if there is an inconsistency I'd say it is the disambiguation tag that needs to be revised. Am I admitting this "begrudgingly?" Hardly. It was my position from the very start.
I do not know what you mean by "compromise." Compromises are between two opposing views. I have no views, and do not see any opposing views. I see problems, and solutions. One problem is how to describe Judaism in a way that is inclusive of the views found in reliable sources. I think the first paragraph does that just fine. I see attempts to change it in ways that ignore the sources to be creating problems, and I have no interest in "compromosing" with that.
If we look at the contents of this article, including various suggestions concerning contents that should be added to it, and the contents of the Jew article, it seems to me that we really have three different articles: one on Judaism, one on Jews, and one on Jewish history. Currently the latter two are merged in one article. That was done a while ago, when both articles were short. But the Jews article is now 123 kb long, and it is suggested tha it be split. I would propose splitting it into two articles, Jews and Jewish history. The article on Jews is an article on people; it emphasizes demographics with a section on population genetics. Social scientists distinguish between ethnic identities and cultures on the one hand, and social groups and populations on the other hand. The article on Jews seems pretty clearly to me to be about groups and populations. It doesn't say much at all about Jewish culture or Jewish customs. Anthropologists most generally understand culture to encompass those things that are learned and which give life meaning to people. This seems to apply uite nicely to this article. I think whoever wrote the disambiguation tag was acting in good faith but really hadn't thought it through. This does not surprise me because disambiguation tags are usually not based on much discussion or thought (if anyone can point me to any archived discussion concerning the precise phrasing of the disambigution tag I would love to read it but I do not recall any discussion at all). So this may be the first time we are actually discussing the disambiguation tag. If "inconsistency" is a problem, I suggest we change the disambiguation tag to say "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws. For information on Jewish populations and groups, see Jews; for the history of the Jewish people see Jewish history" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The article,
Jews, has a section called "Jewish culture." Guess what the main article it linked to was? This one - "Judaism." So according to the
Jews article, this article is on Jewish culture. I am not going by the diambiguation tags which as I said are typically written by one person without any discussion, I am going by the contents of the actual article. If there are inconsistencies, I think it is obvious that disambiguation pages and tags need to describe the actual article. I just changed the title of the section on Jewish culture to "Judaism" since the contents of that short section was on "Judaism", but to return to this page, this is what the article
Jews has to say about Judaism: "Judaism guides its adherents in both practice and belief, and has been called not only a religion, but also a 'way of life' ..." I think if someone is worried about inconsistencies, it is perfectly reasonable to change the disambiguation description to, "
Judaism refers to the jewish way of life" or as I suggested above, "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws."
Slrubenstein |
Talk
14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have protected this article to stop edit warring. Please try to resolve your differences on the talk page. If that fails, try dispute resolution. Crum375 ( talk) 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Rather than saying what Judaism IS, perhaps we should say what Judaism concerns. Is Judaism a nation? Well, apparently people want to argue about that. But surely no one needs argue whether Judaism contains national interests. Does Judaism have one God? Well, that depends on if God exists. But Judaism believes there is one God. The first is an absolute statement and the second is not.
Judaism is a religion that contains national, practical, legal, and linguistic elements. Most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew, while facing the temple mount in Jerusalem. The prayers are not only focused to God about moral concerns, but also about legal and practical ones: what is commanded. And, finally, Judaism contains specific limits to belief: only one God, an eternal Torah, etc. None of these elements is a single defining character of Judaism, however. It is not JUST a nation, or JUST a culture, or JUST an ethnic group, or JUST a religion (and of course no religion is "just" a religion, or else we editors would have nothing more to write about them, would we?). SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(dab) I thought that part of the problem was with people not knowing what a religion is, so I added an etymology section to that article (it was promptly removed!). However, it seems to me there is another problem.
Strictly speaking Judaism is an early 17th century Christian label for what Jews have instead of Christianity.
For Jews, the whole body of text that serves them in defining who they are was given for that purpose, as a source of differentiating between those that had many gods, and those that had one God. Besides that, it also serves as a code of conduct, spiritual, moral, environmental, social, economic/financial and security/military for an individual, a family, its community and a nation as a whole. There was no comparable code, and neither Christianity nor Islam produced one that sufficed to the same degree.
From this perspective, calling Judaism a monotheistic or Abrahamic religion just like Christianity or Islam is unwarranted because it only equates them based on a single aspect of enumerating deity. I think this is done because if greater degree of comparative analysis is attempted, similarity between the three disintegrates rather swiftly.
More importantly, Jews await the recreation of the united Kingdom of Israel as a culminating in a series of events which would herald a new age for the (reconstituted) Israelite tribes. This is a vastly more complex concept to describe in an encyclopaedic article than a 'religion' and would probably make for some eye-opening reading for many non-Jewish, and perhaps even Jewish readers of Wikipedia. I would also predict that it would raise substantial opposition from other editors because quite a few articles that include sections on Judaism will require substantial editing.
Currently the article only deals with:
The article is vastly deficient.
Meieimatai, great comments. Slrubenstein, yours too re: how to improve the article. I am not that familiar with the fundamental principles of Jewish philosophy and Jewish textual analysis, and it's a fascinating aspect of Judaism that would lend depth to the main article. I'd been planning to move to the "Jewish denominations" section next or continue to flesh out the one about family purity (missing from family purity are a few examples of the special things Haredim do, as well as Conservative/Masorti responsa). However, if you're rewriting the sections about Jewish texts and philosophy, I'll work with you.
In terms of related articles on the subject, WP does not yet have an adequate explanation of what the 4 levels of Pardes are, which IMO is a major omission. -- AFriedman ( talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: this discussion concerns this addition:
by user:Epeefleche. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I think the sentence you just removed was pretty neutral and relevant. What is the problem Lisa and AFreidman have with it, according to you?
Debresser (
talk)
14:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again Slrubenstein states a lot of things, without any sources whatsoever except his own personal knowledge. Plus, what gives him the right to remove that sentence? It has sources and is valid. 71.193.10.156 ( talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to define "ethnic Jews," or are we going to leave that open to interpretation? I think we should say what we mean, whatever that may be. We should endeavor to eliminate ambiguity. Bus stop ( talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted to the consensus version (the version from before this conflict). Both editors should refrain from editing this sentence until a clear consensus has been established. Debresser ( talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Jayjg, Yes, you "streamlined" that sentence. And I streamlined it further. Can you please tell me why your version of that sentence is preferable to my version of that sentence? Let us discuss the edit. You seem intent on widening the issue. You seem intent on putting me under scrutiny. There is just a single sentence that we should be discussing.
This is your version of that sentence:
"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism."
And this is my version of that sentence:
"This figure includes both Jews by birth as well as converts to Judaism."
Simple question -- why do you think your version is preferable to my version? That is all that I think is legitimately on the table for discussion. Please stick to the discussion of the one sentence that this section of the Talk page is ostensibly about.
This is the edit I am concerned with. I'ld like you to explain why you removed my sentence to replace it with your version. Bus stop ( talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) John Carter, as I stated above, before Jayjg started unilaterally making edits, I did not care what wording was used, as long as the meaning was crystal clear to the reader. See above.
Slrubenstein said the following:
On this matter I think we do need a Jewish source, because this is an article on judaism. And we are not allowed to put our own views in an article. If it is just a matter of using the English language clearly, that is up to us. But different ethnic groups have different criteria for membership in the ethnic group so it cannot be what you or I think, it has to be what jews think, that is, Jewish authorities (or historians or sociologists studying Jewish ethnicity). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To which I replied:
Whatever you do, please be clear that the reader understands what you are saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There was no hostility up until that point. I was contemplating no further moves. I no doubt would have continued in dialogue with Slrubenstein and anyone else with normal, civil, input. But Jayjg unilaterally went to the heart of the matter and imposed his will on it. What was I to do, continue "discussing" on the Talk page? I made an edit which was a perfectly rational edit to his edit. That happened twice -- two edits by Jayjg, and two edits by me. At which point Jayjg was already accusing me widespread abuse, and threatening "administrative action." This was precipitated by Jayjg.
The way of hostility is that it sours the air for everybody. I am not going to engage you in a discussion of "ethnic Jew" now. The atmosphere is now entirely beyond the point of that being possible. But let this be clear -- this ugly circumstance is not of my making. I could not have been more delicate in my communications prior to Jayjg's arrival. He did not at all use the Talk page before making his two edits. And by the edit summary of his second edit he was already threatening me with being blocked. Hey -- he is the administrator. He wins. The atmosphere here is ugly. The article suffers. What else is new?
When things get this ugly I have learned to walk away. The sad thing is that that makes Wikipedia a lesser enterprise. Bus stop ( talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw a note by John Carter. As noted, in Judaism, the mother's faith is the dominant. You are of Jewish faith if born of a Jewish faith mother. If your mother is a convert (not "born Jewish") then you are still "born Jewish" = "of Jewish faith." This is different from one's personal blood lineage and whether it purports to trace back to the tribes of Israel ("ethnic Jew"). If you are an "ethnic Jew" and "of Jewish faith", you can renounce your faith and still be an "ethnic Jew."
"Ethnic Jew" (blood lineage) and "born Jewish" (religious lineage) are not interchangeable, so let's not mix them up as parenthetical definitions or id est's of each other.
I'd also note that "Jewish descent" as a term is ambiguous. Descent relates to blood line, so "Jewish descent" stricly speaking means "ethnic Jewish." However, if you state "descended of a 'Jewish' mother [of Jewish faith implied]", as that context refers simply to a blood line traced back to an individual, that can really only taken in the religious sense implied, meaning "born Jewish."
Where there is particular lack of consensus is in the conversion of a mother to Judaism. Orthodox sects largely don't consider it a valid conversion if not to the orthodox faith (that is, to a reform sect/congregation). The practice of faith subsequent to conversion also comes into play regardless of sect, so practice of public ritual, keeping a Jewish house, etc.
So, in succinct terms:
Anyone who thinks everyone knows what Jewish ethnicity means doesn't have a very good understanding of the many different things the term means, in my view. In other words, it's a confusing term -- especially insofar as it is equated to "Jewish by birth" and contrasted to those who become Jewish by conversion. Ethnicity is malleable, so that those who become Jewish by conversion become ethnically Jewish as well as religiously Jewish and are thus "ethnic Jews" (if the term actually means anything). Even this doesn't really capture Jewish ethnicity, least of all in Israel, where one finds a new phenomenon of "sociological conversion" among the Russians who can't become Jewish via orthodox conversion but nonetheless become ethnically Jewish in other ways (on which, see the article by Cohen and Susser, "Jews and Others: Non-Jewish Jews in Israel", in a recent issue of Israel Studies).
So in my view the current text borders on absurd, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name among those who really know the subject. Now, I know better than to get involved in this kind of time sink when there's so little prospect of agreement. I'll add only that I think it's just as disruptive to be intransigent in resisting inclusion of a different perspective as it is to persist in changing the text without consensus. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what John Carter wrote. It seems to me the discussion on this page has devolved into bickering, whatever good faith editors had has been exhausted, and editors are sniping over the smallest of changes. This process started with the section on kashrut and has accelerated when the lede came under discussion.
May I suggest that we turn to mediation to try to hammer out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties? The poisonous atmosphere here is one of the reasons one editor left Wikipedia and it's driven another editor to give up on this article. Please consider mediation as an alternative to continued bickering. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If we can agree to discuss these three issues in orderly sequence here, perhaps formal mediation can be avoided? (That process can take up to six months in some cases). The idea is not to keep having convoluted threaded discussions, but to see what language might be acceptable to the parties here in various compromises. Collect ( talk) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Having some experience as a mediator, I strongly recommend that even if you do this informally, you do it by picking apart the issues one by one and extremely specifically. Trying to deal with several at once will get you nowhere. And I do believe you need formal mediation here - it's too much of a mess and too heated. By the way, you can all make a good start by reminding yourself that the other participants are (from what I've seen) all excellent and good faith editors, even if they passionately may disagree with you. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some editors are unaware of the Wikipedia articles Ethnoreligious group and Ethnic religion. It seems to me that the first article applies neatle to Jews and the second article fits neatly with Judaism. Simple links to these two existing article in the hatnote and in the first paragraph might resolve all of these conflicts. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, to Collect. To Shykee, it does not have to say "ethnic religion." It can say "Judaism is an ethnoreligion". In any event, let us leave dictionaries out of this. if people want a dictionary definition they can go to a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we are not here to define words, we are here to provide an account of something, based on verifiable sources. I have provided reliable sources saying Judaism is a civilization, Judaism is a legal system, Judaism is a way of life. It is these reliable source, not dictionaries, that are the proper sources of an encyclopedia article. Do you want me to return to my own preference? If you want I am perfectly willing to show up every day and sa tat I will not accept any consensus unless it says "Judaism is the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, and philosophy" or something like that. I pointed to the article on Ethnic religion in the spirit of compromise. And Shykee instead uses this as another opportunity to say "Judaism is a religion," period. Okay, if you do not wish to compromise, I will not compromise. I stand by what I proposed. It is informative and echoes the reliable sources. Screw compromise. I tried, and offered a simple solution using an established article. So Shykee doesn't like the way it sounds? Okay, if that is our basis for editing articles, I will back off from the compromise and stick to what is informative and backed by sources, "This article describes the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, philosophy..." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this is irregular -- but are we able to discuss those articles here? Seems if we can get the two other interrelated articles in sync, we will be better able to reach a strong compromise here? WP:DEADLINE seems apropos here until we get those done? Collect ( talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I certainly accept that there are differing scholarly views on what a religion constitutes and where Judaism falls within those parameters. However, by using the word "ethnoreligion" you are also identifying Judaism as a specific, thereby negating other views. I merely propose that we use the most commonly accepted term- as defined in the overwhelming majority of dictionaries- to identify the article. I am certainly open to suggestions that manage to somehow remain completely non-specific yet still identify the article. shykee ( talk) 17:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point. The phrase "the Jewish religion" seems very broad and ambiguous. It can be interpreted in many ways. The phrase "ethnoreligion" cannot be interpreted as anything other than "ethnoreligion". It is more specific and POV. Saying "Jewish religion" does not, it seems to me, negate the possibility of it being an ethnoreligion and seems the most NPOV suggestion yet. shykee ( talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please limit your comments to the discussion. Do not accuse others of being "tendentious". Instead, assume good faith and the discussion will be much more pleasant for all. Please see my comment in the section above where I have quoted the relevant Wikipedia policy ( WP:RELATED). It renders further discussion irrelevant. shykee ( talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence (third paragraph of the lede),
"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism"
...should be removed, because it is not supported by sources. It would be my contention that without supporting sources the inclusion of such an assertion would be irresponsible.
The sentence before it,
"In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13]"
...would seem to be adequately sourced.
But the sources supporting the first sentence do not support the second sentence. Please examine the two sources:
1.) Source #1
2.) Source #2
You will find no mention of "ethnic Jews," "Jews by birth," or "converts to Judaism" in either of the two sources thus far provided. None of that terminology is even encountered in the sources thus far provided.
Though the statistical figures for population may be accurate, and supported by reliable sources, the assertions of the second sentence are not. Bus stop ( talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As the first single issue. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Query (and I am not laying this forth as anything more than an attempt to address all concerns): If we said "religious, ethical and cultural" (trusting that people will, in fact, include "legal" under ethical) where would we be missing the point? Collect ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, when we say "practices" we could argue that this includes religious practices and so "religious" is unnecessary (God appears more than once in the first paragraph which for me is far more important than the word "religion." Ethics and law are (for better or worse) not the same thing. But I do welcome Collect bringing it up - we could say "ritual, ethical, legal, and other cultural beliefs and practices" - how about that? It includes everything I think a variety of sources care about and it is hard for me to see why any one would reject to any single word. "Ritual" is far more precise than religious, which can mean so many different things, but surely, we all agree judaism involves rituals, right? Also, the distinctions between these words is I think fairly clear. I strongly support this and I have tried to include or respond to everyone else's ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "various beliefs and practices" and leave the issue of how those beliefs and practices are elucidated to the main body of the article? Once we hit multiple adjectives, perhaps we should simply trust the reader? Collect ( talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Debresser, I am all for compromise. If it is important to you that the list I proposed begin with the word "religion," I have no objectin to that if it resolves this dispute. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The term "beliefs and practices" can mean "religion", but it also leaves room for broader interpretations, such as that of influential Jewish thinkers like Mordachai Kaplan or Echad HaAm, both of whom understood Judaism to be an ethnicity that includes a religion, rather than merely a religion by itself. Using the term "religon" to describe Judaism gives undue weight to a particular point of view on Judaism. Clearly the number of words spilled on this issue illustrates the danger of using a phrasing that limits the definition of Judaism to one point of view. Egfrank ( talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
One week -- looks like "is a set of beliefs and practices" (a very minor change_ is where we arrived. Collect ( talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Slrubenstein left this comment on my page:
To which I responded with:
He seems to be the only person arguing for this. Consensus was gained already. I'm not changing the article. The article already says Judaism is a religion numerous times in the article. I'm just making the intro reflect that so that it is in line with some of the other major religion articles. The user, Slrubenstien, continuously is inserting opinion in his argument, which is not what we're here for on wikipedia. I do believe his edits are in good faith, but he should look at the FACTS and consensus. This is just getting ridiculous. It's not a big issue considering the article says Judaism is a religion multiple times in other places and the Jew article already covers the ethnicity and culture of Judaism, even if Slrubenstien believes it doesn't. He keeps saying what he thinks the articles are about, but wikipedia already says what they are about and therefore the argument is moot. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You may indeed disagree Lisa, but I don't understand how my argument is not understood. It is logical in the extreme. First, a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of the word "religion". Fact. Second, in this article [Judaism] it says that "Judaism is a religion" numerous times in different ways (i.e. "Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion still practiced", etc.). Fact. Thirdly, the people who are arguing that it should say "a set of beliefs and practices" want it to say this instead of "religion" because they believe the word "Judaism" also refers to a cultural and ethnic identity and not just a religious one. Fact. However, it clearly says in this same article [Judaism] in the first sentence on the page, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Fact. Even with that last point alone, my argument is clear and infallible. There is no logical argument that can be made against what I just said. I don't mean to sound arrogant. All I care about is that wikipedia is accurate and uniform as any encyclopedia should be. I'm not saying my opinions. Everything I pointed out is FACT. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Judaism, that is the Jewish religion. The other things are part of the Jewish identity, but not of Judaism. Debresser ( talk) 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Judaism is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews." I would weigh that fact more heavily than most "facts" found on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would also help that during this discussion if users would state which intro they think should be the one used. Because, I could be mistaken, but most people seem to be saying "religion" is better but are arguing about other issues. Like Bus Stop and Debressor, who both make good arguments, seem to think the word "religion" in the intro sentence are satisfactory, but are arguing about some other intricacies on what should be incl. in the article, etc. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Debresser made a good point, too, when he said that this article is not about the Jewish identity but about the religion. I don't mean to sound like a prick or come off as insulting or something, but I really do not get why this is such a big deal. It's a really simple change, and yes, semantics is important and words mean a lot, even simple ones, but a "set of beliefs and practices" is the definition of "religion" and doesn't change the meaning. We all agree that Judaism covers a lot, like the religion itself and a certain identity that incl. an ethnicity and culture (Though doesn't Islam and Christianity cover that, too? Although some might argue to a lesser degree). We just can't seem to agree on what this article is specifically covering. Which I really don't see why there is any argument about that at all. This article doesn't cover the cultural or ethnic aspects of Judaism. The Jew article does. However, this article does mention Judaism as a religion about just 100 times over. One of the sections even says:("8 Judaism and other religions"). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 09:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Navnløs makes a number of claims: (1) that consensus was reached for his change; this is false, this discussion to which he refers took place after two people reverted his non-consensus edit. His original non-consensus edit was unilateral. If there was any discussion leading to a consensus prior to his edit would he please provide an edit diff? (2) That there is a consensus for his edit. False. There is at best some uncertainty about how the introduction reads, but several editors support it. That simply canot be discribed as a consensus for change. (3) that his edit is based on sources, not on his personal POV; this too is false, he has never provided any sources to support his edit. he has refered to inconsistencies in the article and between the article and disambiguation note. Knock-knock! Inconsistencies on the page are not what we mean by "sources" (please read WP:RS); they are inconsistancies and we certainly can discuss how to improve them. But Navnløs seems simply to be a POV-warrior. I do not know what deep insight into Judaism, or what kind of research, leads him to be so dedicated to his crusade to change the introduction, he has given no indication of any research at all, or any knowledge of Judaism beyond what he has read of an incomplete (I mean, unfinished) Wikipedia article. (4) that people who disagree with him are POV-pushers. I do not know if that is mere parroting, a knee-jerk and childish form of defense, or projection, but it is again simply false. He opens this section by posting a personal comment I made on his talk page, in which I informed him that i had posted reliable sources on this page! I provided a number of sources, and Malik Shabbazz just provided another, which once again makes the simple point that Judaism is a religion, and it is other things, i.e. it is more than a religion, which means that we need language that is inclusive of religion plus other things (like, philosophy and way of life, following EJ, or civilization or legal system, following others). But Navnløs has never responded to any discussion of sources. Apparently his ideal is to write an encyclopedia that is based not on knoweldge but ignorance. I really would much rather he read a few books.
Navnløs, everyone has responded to all of your points. You just are not listening. As Lisa says, do you just want us to post three times a day? Lisa says "squeaky wheel; I say a classic case of WP:DE; at least on her user page Navnløs identifies herself as a pirate who says "F you" to other users (yes, a joke very funny ha-ha).
This is a serious issue: I and others have suggested serious ways that this article can be improved. Navnløs, if you really wish to improve the article, you could really earn all of our thanks if you disd some research and added meaningful content to the body of the article. Here are specific areas where the article needs work: [1] and [2]. Why not do that?
So the "pirate" wants a compromise. But as many people have pointed out, the introduction to this article makes it very clear that Judaism is among other things a religion. The article identifies Judaism as a religion, it never says it is not a religion. All we have is one sentence that suggests that it is something bigger. How about this as a compromose: Navnløs, edit articles on topics you know about. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You are right, DE is at least premature. But he seems obsessed with this one issue and I do not unerstand why. If I had time now I would be working on the very improvements I suggest, but I really have RL to attend to. If there are editors with more time on their hands, I really wish they would focus on content. There really is so much more to Judaism and I wish this article did justice to it. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor, I guess. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I provide sources to support the consensus, and you accuse me of imposing my personal point of view (which I have never expressed). You do not provide any sources, and yet somehow this is not your own point of view? I just do not get that.
You say you do not make this personal, but you consider my supporting a longstanding consensus "ridiculous." And you say that my point about inconsistencies in the article is made "begrudgingly." How do you know my mental state? In fact, don't all Wikipedia articles, or virtually all, have inconsistencies? isn't this the inevitable consequence of articles being edited by thousands of people? I am not "admitting" anything, I am pointing out that your claim to be making a logical argument has no logic at all behind it.
When there is an inconsistency between two descriptions of an object, there is no "logical" solution to the problem. One has to ask which description is more accurate or in the case of Wikipedia more compliant with our policies, such as NPOV and RS. I and several others have argued that the language in the first paragraph is both more accurate and more inclusive of diverse views from reliable sources and thus in compliance with policy, moreso than the disambiguation tag. This is understandable as many people discussed and worked on the first paragraph of articles; disambiguation lines are written much more casually. In this case, if there is an inconsistency I'd say it is the disambiguation tag that needs to be revised. Am I admitting this "begrudgingly?" Hardly. It was my position from the very start.
I do not know what you mean by "compromise." Compromises are between two opposing views. I have no views, and do not see any opposing views. I see problems, and solutions. One problem is how to describe Judaism in a way that is inclusive of the views found in reliable sources. I think the first paragraph does that just fine. I see attempts to change it in ways that ignore the sources to be creating problems, and I have no interest in "compromosing" with that.
If we look at the contents of this article, including various suggestions concerning contents that should be added to it, and the contents of the Jew article, it seems to me that we really have three different articles: one on Judaism, one on Jews, and one on Jewish history. Currently the latter two are merged in one article. That was done a while ago, when both articles were short. But the Jews article is now 123 kb long, and it is suggested tha it be split. I would propose splitting it into two articles, Jews and Jewish history. The article on Jews is an article on people; it emphasizes demographics with a section on population genetics. Social scientists distinguish between ethnic identities and cultures on the one hand, and social groups and populations on the other hand. The article on Jews seems pretty clearly to me to be about groups and populations. It doesn't say much at all about Jewish culture or Jewish customs. Anthropologists most generally understand culture to encompass those things that are learned and which give life meaning to people. This seems to apply uite nicely to this article. I think whoever wrote the disambiguation tag was acting in good faith but really hadn't thought it through. This does not surprise me because disambiguation tags are usually not based on much discussion or thought (if anyone can point me to any archived discussion concerning the precise phrasing of the disambigution tag I would love to read it but I do not recall any discussion at all). So this may be the first time we are actually discussing the disambiguation tag. If "inconsistency" is a problem, I suggest we change the disambiguation tag to say "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws. For information on Jewish populations and groups, see Jews; for the history of the Jewish people see Jewish history" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The article,
Jews, has a section called "Jewish culture." Guess what the main article it linked to was? This one - "Judaism." So according to the
Jews article, this article is on Jewish culture. I am not going by the diambiguation tags which as I said are typically written by one person without any discussion, I am going by the contents of the actual article. If there are inconsistencies, I think it is obvious that disambiguation pages and tags need to describe the actual article. I just changed the title of the section on Jewish culture to "Judaism" since the contents of that short section was on "Judaism", but to return to this page, this is what the article
Jews has to say about Judaism: "Judaism guides its adherents in both practice and belief, and has been called not only a religion, but also a 'way of life' ..." I think if someone is worried about inconsistencies, it is perfectly reasonable to change the disambiguation description to, "
Judaism refers to the jewish way of life" or as I suggested above, "This article refers to the way of life of the Jewish people, including their religion, philosophy, and laws."
Slrubenstein |
Talk
14:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have protected this article to stop edit warring. Please try to resolve your differences on the talk page. If that fails, try dispute resolution. Crum375 ( talk) 01:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Rather than saying what Judaism IS, perhaps we should say what Judaism concerns. Is Judaism a nation? Well, apparently people want to argue about that. But surely no one needs argue whether Judaism contains national interests. Does Judaism have one God? Well, that depends on if God exists. But Judaism believes there is one God. The first is an absolute statement and the second is not.
Judaism is a religion that contains national, practical, legal, and linguistic elements. Most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew, while facing the temple mount in Jerusalem. The prayers are not only focused to God about moral concerns, but also about legal and practical ones: what is commanded. And, finally, Judaism contains specific limits to belief: only one God, an eternal Torah, etc. None of these elements is a single defining character of Judaism, however. It is not JUST a nation, or JUST a culture, or JUST an ethnic group, or JUST a religion (and of course no religion is "just" a religion, or else we editors would have nothing more to write about them, would we?). SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(dab) I thought that part of the problem was with people not knowing what a religion is, so I added an etymology section to that article (it was promptly removed!). However, it seems to me there is another problem.
Strictly speaking Judaism is an early 17th century Christian label for what Jews have instead of Christianity.
For Jews, the whole body of text that serves them in defining who they are was given for that purpose, as a source of differentiating between those that had many gods, and those that had one God. Besides that, it also serves as a code of conduct, spiritual, moral, environmental, social, economic/financial and security/military for an individual, a family, its community and a nation as a whole. There was no comparable code, and neither Christianity nor Islam produced one that sufficed to the same degree.
From this perspective, calling Judaism a monotheistic or Abrahamic religion just like Christianity or Islam is unwarranted because it only equates them based on a single aspect of enumerating deity. I think this is done because if greater degree of comparative analysis is attempted, similarity between the three disintegrates rather swiftly.
More importantly, Jews await the recreation of the united Kingdom of Israel as a culminating in a series of events which would herald a new age for the (reconstituted) Israelite tribes. This is a vastly more complex concept to describe in an encyclopaedic article than a 'religion' and would probably make for some eye-opening reading for many non-Jewish, and perhaps even Jewish readers of Wikipedia. I would also predict that it would raise substantial opposition from other editors because quite a few articles that include sections on Judaism will require substantial editing.
Currently the article only deals with:
The article is vastly deficient.
Meieimatai, great comments. Slrubenstein, yours too re: how to improve the article. I am not that familiar with the fundamental principles of Jewish philosophy and Jewish textual analysis, and it's a fascinating aspect of Judaism that would lend depth to the main article. I'd been planning to move to the "Jewish denominations" section next or continue to flesh out the one about family purity (missing from family purity are a few examples of the special things Haredim do, as well as Conservative/Masorti responsa). However, if you're rewriting the sections about Jewish texts and philosophy, I'll work with you.
In terms of related articles on the subject, WP does not yet have an adequate explanation of what the 4 levels of Pardes are, which IMO is a major omission. -- AFriedman ( talk) 02:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: this discussion concerns this addition:
by user:Epeefleche. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I think the sentence you just removed was pretty neutral and relevant. What is the problem Lisa and AFreidman have with it, according to you?
Debresser (
talk)
14:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again Slrubenstein states a lot of things, without any sources whatsoever except his own personal knowledge. Plus, what gives him the right to remove that sentence? It has sources and is valid. 71.193.10.156 ( talk) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to define "ethnic Jews," or are we going to leave that open to interpretation? I think we should say what we mean, whatever that may be. We should endeavor to eliminate ambiguity. Bus stop ( talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted to the consensus version (the version from before this conflict). Both editors should refrain from editing this sentence until a clear consensus has been established. Debresser ( talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Jayjg, Yes, you "streamlined" that sentence. And I streamlined it further. Can you please tell me why your version of that sentence is preferable to my version of that sentence? Let us discuss the edit. You seem intent on widening the issue. You seem intent on putting me under scrutiny. There is just a single sentence that we should be discussing.
This is your version of that sentence:
"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism."
And this is my version of that sentence:
"This figure includes both Jews by birth as well as converts to Judaism."
Simple question -- why do you think your version is preferable to my version? That is all that I think is legitimately on the table for discussion. Please stick to the discussion of the one sentence that this section of the Talk page is ostensibly about.
This is the edit I am concerned with. I'ld like you to explain why you removed my sentence to replace it with your version. Bus stop ( talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) John Carter, as I stated above, before Jayjg started unilaterally making edits, I did not care what wording was used, as long as the meaning was crystal clear to the reader. See above.
Slrubenstein said the following:
On this matter I think we do need a Jewish source, because this is an article on judaism. And we are not allowed to put our own views in an article. If it is just a matter of using the English language clearly, that is up to us. But different ethnic groups have different criteria for membership in the ethnic group so it cannot be what you or I think, it has to be what jews think, that is, Jewish authorities (or historians or sociologists studying Jewish ethnicity). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To which I replied:
Whatever you do, please be clear that the reader understands what you are saying. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There was no hostility up until that point. I was contemplating no further moves. I no doubt would have continued in dialogue with Slrubenstein and anyone else with normal, civil, input. But Jayjg unilaterally went to the heart of the matter and imposed his will on it. What was I to do, continue "discussing" on the Talk page? I made an edit which was a perfectly rational edit to his edit. That happened twice -- two edits by Jayjg, and two edits by me. At which point Jayjg was already accusing me widespread abuse, and threatening "administrative action." This was precipitated by Jayjg.
The way of hostility is that it sours the air for everybody. I am not going to engage you in a discussion of "ethnic Jew" now. The atmosphere is now entirely beyond the point of that being possible. But let this be clear -- this ugly circumstance is not of my making. I could not have been more delicate in my communications prior to Jayjg's arrival. He did not at all use the Talk page before making his two edits. And by the edit summary of his second edit he was already threatening me with being blocked. Hey -- he is the administrator. He wins. The atmosphere here is ugly. The article suffers. What else is new?
When things get this ugly I have learned to walk away. The sad thing is that that makes Wikipedia a lesser enterprise. Bus stop ( talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw a note by John Carter. As noted, in Judaism, the mother's faith is the dominant. You are of Jewish faith if born of a Jewish faith mother. If your mother is a convert (not "born Jewish") then you are still "born Jewish" = "of Jewish faith." This is different from one's personal blood lineage and whether it purports to trace back to the tribes of Israel ("ethnic Jew"). If you are an "ethnic Jew" and "of Jewish faith", you can renounce your faith and still be an "ethnic Jew."
"Ethnic Jew" (blood lineage) and "born Jewish" (religious lineage) are not interchangeable, so let's not mix them up as parenthetical definitions or id est's of each other.
I'd also note that "Jewish descent" as a term is ambiguous. Descent relates to blood line, so "Jewish descent" stricly speaking means "ethnic Jewish." However, if you state "descended of a 'Jewish' mother [of Jewish faith implied]", as that context refers simply to a blood line traced back to an individual, that can really only taken in the religious sense implied, meaning "born Jewish."
Where there is particular lack of consensus is in the conversion of a mother to Judaism. Orthodox sects largely don't consider it a valid conversion if not to the orthodox faith (that is, to a reform sect/congregation). The practice of faith subsequent to conversion also comes into play regardless of sect, so practice of public ritual, keeping a Jewish house, etc.
So, in succinct terms:
Anyone who thinks everyone knows what Jewish ethnicity means doesn't have a very good understanding of the many different things the term means, in my view. In other words, it's a confusing term -- especially insofar as it is equated to "Jewish by birth" and contrasted to those who become Jewish by conversion. Ethnicity is malleable, so that those who become Jewish by conversion become ethnically Jewish as well as religiously Jewish and are thus "ethnic Jews" (if the term actually means anything). Even this doesn't really capture Jewish ethnicity, least of all in Israel, where one finds a new phenomenon of "sociological conversion" among the Russians who can't become Jewish via orthodox conversion but nonetheless become ethnically Jewish in other ways (on which, see the article by Cohen and Susser, "Jews and Others: Non-Jewish Jews in Israel", in a recent issue of Israel Studies).
So in my view the current text borders on absurd, the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name among those who really know the subject. Now, I know better than to get involved in this kind of time sink when there's so little prospect of agreement. I'll add only that I think it's just as disruptive to be intransigent in resisting inclusion of a different perspective as it is to persist in changing the text without consensus. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what John Carter wrote. It seems to me the discussion on this page has devolved into bickering, whatever good faith editors had has been exhausted, and editors are sniping over the smallest of changes. This process started with the section on kashrut and has accelerated when the lede came under discussion.
May I suggest that we turn to mediation to try to hammer out a compromise that is acceptable to all parties? The poisonous atmosphere here is one of the reasons one editor left Wikipedia and it's driven another editor to give up on this article. Please consider mediation as an alternative to continued bickering. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If we can agree to discuss these three issues in orderly sequence here, perhaps formal mediation can be avoided? (That process can take up to six months in some cases). The idea is not to keep having convoluted threaded discussions, but to see what language might be acceptable to the parties here in various compromises. Collect ( talk) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Having some experience as a mediator, I strongly recommend that even if you do this informally, you do it by picking apart the issues one by one and extremely specifically. Trying to deal with several at once will get you nowhere. And I do believe you need formal mediation here - it's too much of a mess and too heated. By the way, you can all make a good start by reminding yourself that the other participants are (from what I've seen) all excellent and good faith editors, even if they passionately may disagree with you. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some editors are unaware of the Wikipedia articles Ethnoreligious group and Ethnic religion. It seems to me that the first article applies neatle to Jews and the second article fits neatly with Judaism. Simple links to these two existing article in the hatnote and in the first paragraph might resolve all of these conflicts. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, to Collect. To Shykee, it does not have to say "ethnic religion." It can say "Judaism is an ethnoreligion". In any event, let us leave dictionaries out of this. if people want a dictionary definition they can go to a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we are not here to define words, we are here to provide an account of something, based on verifiable sources. I have provided reliable sources saying Judaism is a civilization, Judaism is a legal system, Judaism is a way of life. It is these reliable source, not dictionaries, that are the proper sources of an encyclopedia article. Do you want me to return to my own preference? If you want I am perfectly willing to show up every day and sa tat I will not accept any consensus unless it says "Judaism is the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, and philosophy" or something like that. I pointed to the article on Ethnic religion in the spirit of compromise. And Shykee instead uses this as another opportunity to say "Judaism is a religion," period. Okay, if you do not wish to compromise, I will not compromise. I stand by what I proposed. It is informative and echoes the reliable sources. Screw compromise. I tried, and offered a simple solution using an established article. So Shykee doesn't like the way it sounds? Okay, if that is our basis for editing articles, I will back off from the compromise and stick to what is informative and backed by sources, "This article describes the Jewish way of life, including religion, law, philosophy..." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I know this is irregular -- but are we able to discuss those articles here? Seems if we can get the two other interrelated articles in sync, we will be better able to reach a strong compromise here? WP:DEADLINE seems apropos here until we get those done? Collect ( talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I certainly accept that there are differing scholarly views on what a religion constitutes and where Judaism falls within those parameters. However, by using the word "ethnoreligion" you are also identifying Judaism as a specific, thereby negating other views. I merely propose that we use the most commonly accepted term- as defined in the overwhelming majority of dictionaries- to identify the article. I am certainly open to suggestions that manage to somehow remain completely non-specific yet still identify the article. shykee ( talk) 17:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point. The phrase "the Jewish religion" seems very broad and ambiguous. It can be interpreted in many ways. The phrase "ethnoreligion" cannot be interpreted as anything other than "ethnoreligion". It is more specific and POV. Saying "Jewish religion" does not, it seems to me, negate the possibility of it being an ethnoreligion and seems the most NPOV suggestion yet. shykee ( talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please limit your comments to the discussion. Do not accuse others of being "tendentious". Instead, assume good faith and the discussion will be much more pleasant for all. Please see my comment in the section above where I have quoted the relevant Wikipedia policy ( WP:RELATED). It renders further discussion irrelevant. shykee ( talk) 19:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence (third paragraph of the lede),
"This figure includes both ethnic Jews (i.e. Jews by birth) and converts to Judaism"
...should be removed, because it is not supported by sources. It would be my contention that without supporting sources the inclusion of such an assertion would be irresponsible.
The sentence before it,
"In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel[12] and 40% of whom lived in the United States.[13]"
...would seem to be adequately sourced.
But the sources supporting the first sentence do not support the second sentence. Please examine the two sources:
1.) Source #1
2.) Source #2
You will find no mention of "ethnic Jews," "Jews by birth," or "converts to Judaism" in either of the two sources thus far provided. None of that terminology is even encountered in the sources thus far provided.
Though the statistical figures for population may be accurate, and supported by reliable sources, the assertions of the second sentence are not. Bus stop ( talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As the first single issue. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Query (and I am not laying this forth as anything more than an attempt to address all concerns): If we said "religious, ethical and cultural" (trusting that people will, in fact, include "legal" under ethical) where would we be missing the point? Collect ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, when we say "practices" we could argue that this includes religious practices and so "religious" is unnecessary (God appears more than once in the first paragraph which for me is far more important than the word "religion." Ethics and law are (for better or worse) not the same thing. But I do welcome Collect bringing it up - we could say "ritual, ethical, legal, and other cultural beliefs and practices" - how about that? It includes everything I think a variety of sources care about and it is hard for me to see why any one would reject to any single word. "Ritual" is far more precise than religious, which can mean so many different things, but surely, we all agree judaism involves rituals, right? Also, the distinctions between these words is I think fairly clear. I strongly support this and I have tried to include or respond to everyone else's ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "various beliefs and practices" and leave the issue of how those beliefs and practices are elucidated to the main body of the article? Once we hit multiple adjectives, perhaps we should simply trust the reader? Collect ( talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Debresser, I am all for compromise. If it is important to you that the list I proposed begin with the word "religion," I have no objectin to that if it resolves this dispute. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The term "beliefs and practices" can mean "religion", but it also leaves room for broader interpretations, such as that of influential Jewish thinkers like Mordachai Kaplan or Echad HaAm, both of whom understood Judaism to be an ethnicity that includes a religion, rather than merely a religion by itself. Using the term "religon" to describe Judaism gives undue weight to a particular point of view on Judaism. Clearly the number of words spilled on this issue illustrates the danger of using a phrasing that limits the definition of Judaism to one point of view. Egfrank ( talk) 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
One week -- looks like "is a set of beliefs and practices" (a very minor change_ is where we arrived. Collect ( talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)