![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
The consideration of the deletion of this category may be of interest to some of you.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This Rfc is a continuation of a discussion which started above. The reader is recommended to read those as well.
Unlike the entries for other world religions the Judaism entry does not describe its subject matter as a religion in the first sentence, but instead as “beliefs and practices …”. There is a hatnote on the entry that proclaims its subject to be the “Jewish religion” and further down in the lead we learn that it is in fact a “monotheistic religion”. When I attempted to add the latter phrase to the first sentence I was quickly reverted
[1] and I have been told that this is a contentious change. I am hoping to get community input on this. Please see the discussion that has already started above starting with
Talk:Judaism#.22Jewish_religion.22.
Griswaldo (
talk)
03:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) The current article does, indeed, make reference to a non-religion Judaism In contrast to this point of view, practices such as Humanistic Judaism reject the religious aspects of Judaism, while retaining certain cultural traditions. As well as the extensive sections on the monarchy etc. Unless, of course, one regards the section on the monarchy as being about the religion and not about the nation. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I confess that this conversation seems bizarre to me. It seems we have widespread agreement that "religion"="set of beliefs and practices", as evidenced by the uncontroversial use of the word religion in the hatnote and the next paragraph as indicating the topic of this article as opposed to anything else. This makes sense; the other three things one might call "Judaism" referred to in the hatnote -- ethnicity, history, and culture -- can hardly be called a "set of beliefs and practices." Yet we have widespread objection to replacing the phrase "set of beliefs and practices" with "religion" because Judaism is not just a religion/set of beliefs and practices. As I noted above, we can't have it both ways, guys. If the article "Judaism" should be about aspects of being Jewish beyond religion/beliefs & practices, then we have to change the article (and, most prominently, the hatnote). If it's okay for the article to be about Judaism qua religion, then we can and should call it a religion in that first paragraph. If, finally, "religion" is not the same as "a set of beliefs and practices", then we need to make the hatnote and next paragraph the same as the one under dispute, one way or the other. The question of whether Judaism is just a religion seems to me to be utterly beside the point; it's entirely a matter of what this article ought to be about, and once that's clear (as it seems to have been for years that it be about the religion), I don't understand this argument. (I also second Debresser's idea for swapping the phrasing between the two paragraphs.) Savant1984 ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) The material is basically from American Himanist Association, hence is fully sourceable. Second, the point about the article having an extensive discussion about the monarchy also trumps the "Judaism is only a religion" implication of the proposed change. Collect ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I have just returned from a conference where an India scholar pointed out that while the belifs and practices that people identify with Hinduism existed prior to British colonialism, the idea of an "-ism" was a product of British collaboration with Brahmin allies. He further noted that one could make a similar argument about Judaism, that it describes something that existed prior to the 19th century, but is not properly called a "religion" since the concept of "religion" is really a modern invention and does not applie to so much of Judaism. My point is that Wikipedia should not rely on dictionary defintions which is such a poor excuse for research I would just fail a student if theat were her basis for research, and if it is anyone's, here, they do not have any right editing an encyclopedia.
I agree with much of what Collect has said. Many times in the past we have provided many citations from reliable sources describing Judaism as many other things besides "religion."
The bottom line: agree with me or not,, that judaism is a religion is a point of view. I do not object to our presenting it in the article, but as an point of view and not as a fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Religion is not a POV except for maybe new religious groups. Judaism is defined as a "religion" in most, if not all, common references. Nor is it necessary to choose one definition to the exclusion of another, as if there were some rule about only getting one choice. So the this entire issue is ridiculous on its face. In fact, I can't believe anyone has turned it into an argument. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The mainstream point of view among scholars is not reflected in introductory textbooks. What you have to do is read the articles of major scholars that are published in peer-reviewed journals. UC Berkeley, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, and many other major US universities have produced significant work in Jewish studies and of course Hebrew University and Tel Aviv. These scholars also publish books through major university presses that are reliable sources. Read their work and you will see what the mainstream view among scholars is. Shaye Cohen and Daniel Boyarin are very well-established and respected scholars who publish in this field. On the other hand, if you read books and articles published by scholars at the major seminaries - Yeshiva University, Jewish Theological Seminary, Hebrew Union College - you might find different views among different movements of Judaism. Professors at those seminaris often have their own presses, or publish through Berman House or Ktav. So this is where I would go to find out the various points of view. And this is following our policy. Your claim that our policy says to give more weight to other tertiary sources just sounds lazy, and is not our policy. A good encyclopedia expresses views from significant sources; on an object of scholarly research, like Judaism, this means scholarshipproduced by scholars of Jewish studies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? This is an RfC. I gave my comment, and answered the question. We discussed this a long time ago and reached a consensus based on sources. Why not go back through the archives to see the discussions you missed? Or if you want to work on the article why not do the real research one has to do to write an encyclopedia article which yes, does indeed mean reading scholarly articles and books. I didn't come here to do your work. And if you do not want to do work related to this article, go somewhere else. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I provided my sources already. I am not going to waste time doing it again when you can find them in the archive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here for the RfC. We should use the term "religion" in the first sentence. Leadwind ( talk) 04:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to read all the lengthy discusions above, so please excuse me if this has been said before. Collins, Nirvana, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 10:
Such a distinction between a loose and general, but not useless, sense of a word and its lack of utility in contexts requiring more historical and interpretive accuracy is even more important in the case of the word 'religion'. Debates about the definition of the word, and whether it is a universal phenomenon in human life or not, have been and will no doubt remain endless. For myself, a loose, general conversational sense is acceptable: if someone were to ask me what is the majority religion in, say, Thailand or Burma, expecting a short, factual answer, it would seem best – and correct – simply to reply 'Buddhism' or perhaps 'Theravāda Buddhism', rather than churlishly to launch into a disquisition about the definition of the word, and the difficulty of applying it in many Buddhist (and other) contexts. In that general sense ... But ... it is a very much more difficult issue whether the kind(s) of Buddhist thought and practice discussed here [Theravada] are usefully so termed, and whether such a debate will achieve anything.
Although he's talking specifically about Buddhism, much of what he says is general. There's no consensus on the definition of religion, & some scholars maintain there's no such thing. In the light of this, an uncontextualized statement that something is (not) a religion might be considered weasel words. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
TBC Peter jackson ( talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If you add Tomoko Masuzawa's The Invention of the World's Religions I think that's a pretty good representation of those who have raised these kinds of issues. But if one measures those references against the literally millions of books and peer reviewed articles that simply use the term "religion" to refer to everything from the Judaism and Christianity to Sumbanese ancestor cults that's pretty minimal. There are also hundreds of thousands of professors who have appointments in "religious studies departments", or in the sociology of religion, or the anthropology of religion, the philosophy of religion, etc.. These are the "scholars of religion" that you refer to and they don't study a phantom phenomenon without a real referent. Sure there is no neat substantive or functional definition that everyone can agree upon but that's no different than other similar terms like "culture". Framing the discussion in terms of such a definition is a red herring. Scholars of religion generally agree to categorize various traditions of practice and belief as "religion" based upon a lose set of criteria. That criteria may be (or certainly may have been) most suitable for Christianity than for some others, but like I said, after that in terms of suitability is Judaism. Also these scholars who raise issues with "religion" are not specifically claiming that "Judaism is not a religion". I think the discussion they are part of is more appropriate for discussion by us at Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. In the meantime, as long as reliable sources call Judaism a religion so should we. These critiques also represent a very small minority (if not nonexistent) position when it comes to actual academic usage. For instance John Z. Smith clearly has no aversion to the term "religion" despite his controversial remark years ago. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make what I hope is a non-controversial proposal to edit the hatnote. The hatnote says that people should turn to the article on Jews for historical information. But we have a separate article on Jewish history that has existed in one form or anothe almost as long as the encyclopedia. I propose deleting the word "historical" from the current hatnote, and adding a second sentence, "For information on the historical dimension of Judaism, see Jewish history" I am not marrid to this wording, if people get my basic idea and agree with it but can come up with better wording, by all means, do so! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I should have written "For the historical aspect of Jewish identity" because that is what the hatnote currently says (what does "aspct" mean? i do not know, I am just trying to be conservative in sticking to the wording we have.) Like I wrote, above, I am not married to this phrasing. Do you think "For the history of" is better? Fine by me! I asked people to suggest improvements!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The history of the Jews is not covered in the Jews article. it is covered in the Jewish history article. If we are going to have a hatnote referring people to the Jews article, why not also refer them to the Jewish history article? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to have 17 footnotes needed in a short lead. It implies that the material discussed in the lead is not included in the body. If the subject is not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead, so a logical way to improve the article is by adding current lead topics to the body. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I am going to add a section on Rabbinic hermeneutics, featuring R. Ishmael's 13 rules of interpretation. I think this is important because right now the article focuses on the contents of Jewish beliefs and practices. But there is also a Jewish way of thinking, and therefore Judaism is not just static, it is creative, and the rules of interpretation provide Jews with an important way to derive new interpretatins of the Bible. Another reason this section is important is because these principles are often overlooked by non-Jews. Despite claims about a "Judeo-Christian" culture, most people identify logic with Aristotle and hermeneutics with Dilthe and later, Gadamer. The "Judeo" part seems to drop out completely. What I am adding is in many different editions of the prayerbook and should not be considered fringe, partisan, or otherwise controversial. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
All material in the article must come from some source. I have no problem explaining the word "hermeneutics" or using a simpler word. But I do not undestand the objection to the material itself. It is in the Talmud, the oral Law accepted by all Jews and a central text in Judaism; it is reprinted in most prayerbooks. This is far from esoteric, it is something taught to all Jewish boys (and in some cases girls) when they are young. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to "logic" which I think is a word more people understand. As for the source, feel free to add any other. Most siddurim i know have it. The Artscroll Siddur has it, do you prefer that as a source? The point is that these rules are so widely disseminated among Jews we could provide hundreds of sources if you wish. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It follows the section on Jewish literature, because it comes from two major elements of Jewish literature - the Talmud and the Siddur - and because it explains the basic principles by which Jews read that literature. You say "the rabbi" and really show your ignorance of Judaism. Most scholars agree "Rabbi Ishmael" is not just one person but the school associated with his name. More important, these pinciples associated with his name have been accepted by Judaism.
You ask why this should be accepted when Huston isnot - are you on some kind of vendetta? Are you angry that I questioned a source you liked? Are you trying to horse-trade, that you wil allow a source I like if I accept a source you like? THIS sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. The reason wew accept this is because it if rom the Talmud, which is along with the Tanakh the most important sacred literature in Judaism, and because this text, which is at least two thousand years old, has stood the test of time and continues to be studied and read by Jews and is so important in Judaism that it is guoted in full in our prayerbooks. I know of no heatred debate about the status of thse principles, but if you can find a reliable source that pressents another POV, add it.
THIS is how we collaborate on Wikipedia. I added sourced content in an NPOV way. There is nothing at all esoteric about this, anyone has access to it and it is read by Jews of all backgrounds and ages every day. BUT if you think there is some opposing view-point, please provide it. But do not just delete it because you do not like it. We do not put our own points of view into the article. I put this in because it is so widely used in Judaism and fills a big gap in the article. Please explain to me why you delete this section but not a section on religious doctrine when Judaism has no dogma or creed? But if you do not belive me, hey, just find a credible source that says a majority of Jews reject the thirteen pinciples of logic. Add useful knowledge, do not delete it. Adding this reveals to non-Jews a very important part of Judaism they do not know about. That makes it valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This section is at least as widely accepted among Jews as Mainmonides Ani Ma'amim which we include in the article. Be consistent: if we include Maimonide's thirteen principles of faith, in an article on a religion that has no creed and dogma, we should also include Rabbi Ishmael's thirtten principles of logic, in an article on a religion that does emphasize Torah study. Do include one and not the other smacks of an agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Jews do not believe that the Torah consists solely of its written contents. They view the Torah as dynamic, because it contains within it a host of interpretations. The following are Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic, for the interpretation of the Torah. These principles build on rules first proposed by Rabbi Hillel, and are found in the introduction to the Sifra, an early Midrash. They were later accepted by the sages of the Talmud, and are reproduced in many Jewish prayer books. They constitute an important Jewish contribution to logic and hermeneutics, and jurisprudence.
of other passages. [1]
The above section was removed per discussion and placed here for any other comments. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that reverting Sl and insisting he talk on the discussion page is disengenuous if no one responds to him. There was nothing in his edit that violated any principle that I know of. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 12:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It's true that this section consists almost entirely of original research. Some examples:
But Griswaldo is wrong about it being a primary source. It's a primary source about Rabbi Yishmael's principles. It's a secondary source about the Torah. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've also added requests for citations at the three points noted above, and fixed an extra line break in the middle of principle 13. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Slrubenstein, there are so many flaws in your argument, mostly related to what you personally think about what "all" Jewish boys learn and are taught," and the "Jewish way of thinking," that there's really nothing to respond to. It's total OR of your opinion. Even if you claimed to be Jewish, which you do only by implication with your username, it's still your personal opinions. You also shift the burden of "untruth" to others, by absurd demands:
I'll have to remember that when I can't support an edit: "Hey, prove me wrong with credible sources." And you then canvass for helpers, like you did on earlier challenged edits, who almost always stop by to back you up. And just in case all of that's not enough, you can always just accuse other editors of bad faith:
With such a formidable array of tools at your disposal you make it hard for others to improve the article. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment. If I had been asked prima fascie whether the 13 rules should be included, my answer would have been negative. A review of a random page of Talmud indicates that there are many other ways of exegesis apart from the 13 rules (for instance hekesh, the concept of al tikra, the process of a tserichata etc). If we were to mention Ishmael's rules, which are important enough to have incorporated into the daily prayers, then they should only serve as an example and in that case I would not have reproduced them verbatim. As an example, however, they are unparalleled. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the reference works I've looked at in the last few minutes I'm satisfied that this example is probably the most notable. For instance, The Oxford Companion to the Jewish Religion, writes the following:
However the companion has very little on hermeneutics and the prominent exposition here still needs to be justified in relation to due weight in the entry. See below. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As User:slrubenstein unilaterally restored a large mass of copied text that was removed with talk page explanation, and did so despite an early consensus by other editors to the removal, it would appear that he bypassed acceptable BRD protocol by forcing the disputed addition into this article. I feel that a removal of the material pending a proper consensus by neutral (i.e. unsolicited) editors would be reasonable so we can move on to fixing pre-existing problems with the article. For example: Section "Jewish religious texts" is simply a list without much context, except to say it is a list; "Jewish legal literature" is a large and unsourced section of OR; ditto "Jewish philosophy." These are all large subjects which we should be finding sources for, instead of wasting time. Let's keep it simple: Remove or Keep, pending consensus, proper discussion, and hopefully meaningful 3rd party citations to support and explain the material.
I appreciate Griswaldo's research. I think there is an underlying issue here, which is the distinction between "Rabbinic Judaism" and "Judaism." As a historical period, historians refer to Rabbinic Judaism as that period covering the composition of the Mishnah and the Talmud. As a religion, I think most Jews do not distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and Judaism. For example, Jews do not consider the Talmud to be a text sacred just to the Rabbis, they consider it sacred for all Jews today. To the case in point, R. Ishmael's principles are printed in most sidurim, making them part of contemporary Judaism as well.
As to why hermeneutics are important, I think some of the Rishonim and Rambam too believed that these hermeneutical principles were revealed by God at Sinai. Even if they were not, they provide a crucial link between the Torah she biktav and Torah she baal peh. Tht three cornerstones of Judaism are Torah, prayer, and good deeds. Hermeneutics are the starting point of Torah study. Without these hermeneutics, we wouldn't know what kinds of work are forbidden by God on the Sabbath, for example.
I was asked an absolute question; now I will ask a relative question: why are Rambam's thirteen principles of faith more important than Jewish hermeneutics? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I only have my own opinion as to why you find the thirteen principles of faith in so many sources. In this matter, I think asking "who is the audience" is an important part of "why" but that is just my opinion. Be that as it may, I do not think we should simply immitate other encyclopedias. Most prayerbooks have Ishmael's 13 forms of logic, and that is for a Jewish audience, so that tells me something about what Jews think is important to other Jews.
I would not mind wittling down the thirteen forms of logic, if we also whittled down Rambam's thirteen elements of faith. This seems reasonable given that the article itself emphasizes that Judaism is not a creedal religion, does not have a dogma. Note what the section says about Josephus, and how even today what es essential is the Bible and commentaries like the talmud (of which Ishmael's hermeneutics are very veyr important). Rambam's 13 principles of faith were contested for two centuries, but Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic were never contested (although it is true there are other hermeneutical principles besides Ishmael's). Many Jewish authorities have said Judaism is a religion of law not faith. Shouldn't our article reflect that? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, I was being elliptical so you missed my point. If all we do is imitate other encyclopedias and popular texts, we serve no purpose - might as well just let people use the encyclopedias they already have access to. Wikipedia should be something different and should just be based on its own principles: first, Be bold!. Then, a wiki-pedia, that is written by anyone and everyone, not some editorial board for Oxford University Press. If editors here acting in good faith can agree that what anyone added is informative, that is generally sufficient. Finally, our core pore policies (which come after being bold and being wiki), which act as a brake on an editor abusing the wiki technology: NPOV, NOR, and V, and I believe I have complied with all three. And I believe I have been accountable to the "wiki" community - other editors ask me why I think this is important, and I take their queries seriously, and try to respons seriously. As a fellow member of the wikicommunity I have a responsibility to explain myself to you - but I have no responsibility to hold my edits accountable to the editorial boards of major reference works. Any WP editor who wished to do so should leave WP and seek a job for one of those standard reference works. Is the result different from Encyclopedia Britanica or other standard references? I hope so. If I didn't I would have zero interest in Wikipedia. I already have access to a great encyclopedia put together the usual way. I don't need something that mimics it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
As some have pointed out, there are other hermeneutical principles. Following the lead of the section on faith and creed, where Ani Maamim is put in a text-box, I have put Ishmael's thirteen middot in a textbox. I have also mentioned a few other major sets of hermeneutical principles, and have added a quote from Neusner. Frankly, I think more can and should be said about (1) the place of these principles both in the Talmud and Midrash as texts to be studied, and (2) as rules (themselves divinely revealed??) by which the Torah she baal peh was transmitted over the centuries (3) as rules used to study the Torah and Talmud. I really welcome the input of others Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This section should be renamed for accuracy. The content is not about some general Jewish principles of logic but specifically about Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics or Talmudic Hermeneutics. Something like Jewish Interpretation of the Torah or Torah Hermeneutics would work. The section may not be in the best place either. Thoughts? Griswaldo ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that this belongs in the same section as the one that includes the Talmud and Midrash. I suggest that we have one section on sacred literature (Torah to the Talmud) and a separate section for non-sacred commentaries and philosophy, or if it makes more sense for literature (of any sort, exigetical, commentary, philosophy) from the rishonim on. Thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so far the debate over the hatnote is 3-2, which I would say is too close to justify any change. So we have a hatnote that says that people looking for historical information should go to Jews plus we have an article Jewish history. Yet we have material in this article on Jewish history. I propose it be moved either to the article on Jews or the article on jewish history. Does anyone object if I move it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Bus stop, although I appreciate your views on the topic. To reply to Wikiwatcher: Perhaps you misinterprete my proposal. I agree with you that it would be folly to try "to surgically remove" historical material that is interwoven throughout the text. My proposal is to remove the section that is excplicitly and exclusively on Jewish history viz. section 7. There isnothing surgical about this. This entire section can and should easily be merged with the history article.
As to your comparison with my recent addition (which, by the way, had NO esoteric content, and is not about anything esoteric); the two are in no way analogous. This article begins with a hatnote telling readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish history - it does not begin with a hatnote asking readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish hermeneutics. Moreover, the history section really is not a history of "Judaism," it is a history of the Jews, and clearly fits into other articles; Jewish hermeneutics is a central aspect of Judaism "as a religion" which is something you proclaim to care about. Finally, I was able to summarize Jewish hermeneutics in a relatively small section. Jewish history simply cannot be so summarized. So I see no basis for your analogy. No one is questioning the importance of Jewish history and if your only argument is that Jewish history is important, you loose. Jewish history is covered in a prominent article on Jewish history, an article that gives it full attention.
Bus stop is right, covering Jewish history here breaks up the flow, doesn't fit with the article, and cannot be done effectively. Also, making sure that our coverage of one topic in three different articles remains consistent can be a real headache. I repeat what I said at the beginning: a suggestion to get rid of the hat note has failed. So we keep the hat note. It is absurd on its face to agree to keep the hatnote and then to structure this article in a way that explicitly contradicts the hatnote. I am just asking that this article be what it claims to be about, and not be abot what it claims not to be about. Where is the objection? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So you have absolutely nothing against the proposal? Good. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? I thought you misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing removing any nistorical context that is interwoven with the account of Judaism, which is what you were referign to. I am talking about section 7, a summary of Jewish history. Are you proposing that we delete the word "historical" from the hatnote, or that we merge the contents from the Jewish history article into this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion appears to have ended |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article currently has a quote from Mark Twain. Another editor considered this unbalanced, and added another quote from Mark Twain. I think any editor might wonder why this article should have two quotes from Mark Twain. Frankly, I am not sure why we need one quote from Mark Twain, who certainly was no expert in Jewish Studies. But the first quote I suppose could be argued to be presenting a generally held view of Jews, a view that might be held by Jews as well as by Gentiles. The new quote however seemed to me to serve only one of two purposes: to illustrate that southern US Jews following the Civil War were predatory exploiters, or illustrating that Mark Twain was anti-Semitic. The former is too specific an example to belong in an article that is about Judaism in general; the latter belongs in an article on mark Twain, not here. So I see no justification for adding the quote, it gives grossly undue-weight to Mark Twain or his opinions. So I deleted it. Now, if someone objects to the first Twain quote, they should register their objection here and we could discuss deleting the first Twain quote. But there is just no reason at all why an article on Judaism should have so much Mark Twain content. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the study of Torah, and a text on how to study Torah that is found in all major Jewish prayerbooks and thus read every day by all observant Jews, is way too much for an article on Judaism - I mean, how are these things even related? What the article on Judaism really needs is more stuff by Mark Twain, the most important Jewish thinker of the 19th century and read by all Jews daily, um, well, I think ... Yeah, this is a persuasive argument! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Victor9876, this article is not the place for random quotes about Jews; see WP:UNDUE. Also, I've removed your insertion at Elizabeth Taylor, since it violated WP:MOSBIO, which I suggest you review. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
First Slrbenstein, you have apparently not read the Twain treatise in its entirety, Twain is not making the case of being anti-Semetic, just making observations that most Gentiles of his time, would not have bothered with, and I mention earlier, tried to make the case of assimilation by the Jews into their host culture, and that the hatred for the Jews by whites, was more economic than religious, but surely, both were the case. Nor, am I anti-Semetic. I happen to agree with the Palestinians in Gaza over the land issues, they are Semites as well. That does not make me a Jew hater either, which I am reading in your taunts to have me be uncivil. Every editor has several choices how they edit, not the 1, 2, 3, that you elude to. My experience on WP says remove something from an article, it gets reverted, include something, it gets deleted, so to prevent 3RR's and edit warring, I have tried to develop a strategy that works best for everyone, since few use the talkpage before moving ahead boldly as the rules suggest. You are being disengenuous in your suggestions that you were trying a study of your own, and I can say it without numbers, why didn't you remove it yourself since you mentioned you didn't think it was appropriate? You are no Freud. In fact, your page and self-acknowledgments make you more of a narcissist, than a scientist. That being said, my Narcissism is better than your narcissism (lol)! Victor9876 ( talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) Personally, best to see Twain gone here. He's not a scholar, at best his (full) comments (both about Jewish survival and unbecoming conduct on the part of Jews) belong in an article discussing the evolving image of Jews in popular society over time—and to what degree it matched contemporary Jewish self-image would be of interest as well. It's not for this article. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, there's no point in including cherry-picked quotes from Mark Twain, unless they are extremely famous and highly relevant. Otherwise WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR apply. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Never the twain shall meet?
16:14, 4 June 2010 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
The consideration of the deletion of this category may be of interest to some of you.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This Rfc is a continuation of a discussion which started above. The reader is recommended to read those as well.
Unlike the entries for other world religions the Judaism entry does not describe its subject matter as a religion in the first sentence, but instead as “beliefs and practices …”. There is a hatnote on the entry that proclaims its subject to be the “Jewish religion” and further down in the lead we learn that it is in fact a “monotheistic religion”. When I attempted to add the latter phrase to the first sentence I was quickly reverted
[1] and I have been told that this is a contentious change. I am hoping to get community input on this. Please see the discussion that has already started above starting with
Talk:Judaism#.22Jewish_religion.22.
Griswaldo (
talk)
03:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) The current article does, indeed, make reference to a non-religion Judaism In contrast to this point of view, practices such as Humanistic Judaism reject the religious aspects of Judaism, while retaining certain cultural traditions. As well as the extensive sections on the monarchy etc. Unless, of course, one regards the section on the monarchy as being about the religion and not about the nation. Collect ( talk) 12:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I confess that this conversation seems bizarre to me. It seems we have widespread agreement that "religion"="set of beliefs and practices", as evidenced by the uncontroversial use of the word religion in the hatnote and the next paragraph as indicating the topic of this article as opposed to anything else. This makes sense; the other three things one might call "Judaism" referred to in the hatnote -- ethnicity, history, and culture -- can hardly be called a "set of beliefs and practices." Yet we have widespread objection to replacing the phrase "set of beliefs and practices" with "religion" because Judaism is not just a religion/set of beliefs and practices. As I noted above, we can't have it both ways, guys. If the article "Judaism" should be about aspects of being Jewish beyond religion/beliefs & practices, then we have to change the article (and, most prominently, the hatnote). If it's okay for the article to be about Judaism qua religion, then we can and should call it a religion in that first paragraph. If, finally, "religion" is not the same as "a set of beliefs and practices", then we need to make the hatnote and next paragraph the same as the one under dispute, one way or the other. The question of whether Judaism is just a religion seems to me to be utterly beside the point; it's entirely a matter of what this article ought to be about, and once that's clear (as it seems to have been for years that it be about the religion), I don't understand this argument. (I also second Debresser's idea for swapping the phrasing between the two paragraphs.) Savant1984 ( talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) The material is basically from American Himanist Association, hence is fully sourceable. Second, the point about the article having an extensive discussion about the monarchy also trumps the "Judaism is only a religion" implication of the proposed change. Collect ( talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I have just returned from a conference where an India scholar pointed out that while the belifs and practices that people identify with Hinduism existed prior to British colonialism, the idea of an "-ism" was a product of British collaboration with Brahmin allies. He further noted that one could make a similar argument about Judaism, that it describes something that existed prior to the 19th century, but is not properly called a "religion" since the concept of "religion" is really a modern invention and does not applie to so much of Judaism. My point is that Wikipedia should not rely on dictionary defintions which is such a poor excuse for research I would just fail a student if theat were her basis for research, and if it is anyone's, here, they do not have any right editing an encyclopedia.
I agree with much of what Collect has said. Many times in the past we have provided many citations from reliable sources describing Judaism as many other things besides "religion."
The bottom line: agree with me or not,, that judaism is a religion is a point of view. I do not object to our presenting it in the article, but as an point of view and not as a fact. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Religion is not a POV except for maybe new religious groups. Judaism is defined as a "religion" in most, if not all, common references. Nor is it necessary to choose one definition to the exclusion of another, as if there were some rule about only getting one choice. So the this entire issue is ridiculous on its face. In fact, I can't believe anyone has turned it into an argument. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The mainstream point of view among scholars is not reflected in introductory textbooks. What you have to do is read the articles of major scholars that are published in peer-reviewed journals. UC Berkeley, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, and many other major US universities have produced significant work in Jewish studies and of course Hebrew University and Tel Aviv. These scholars also publish books through major university presses that are reliable sources. Read their work and you will see what the mainstream view among scholars is. Shaye Cohen and Daniel Boyarin are very well-established and respected scholars who publish in this field. On the other hand, if you read books and articles published by scholars at the major seminaries - Yeshiva University, Jewish Theological Seminary, Hebrew Union College - you might find different views among different movements of Judaism. Professors at those seminaris often have their own presses, or publish through Berman House or Ktav. So this is where I would go to find out the various points of view. And this is following our policy. Your claim that our policy says to give more weight to other tertiary sources just sounds lazy, and is not our policy. A good encyclopedia expresses views from significant sources; on an object of scholarly research, like Judaism, this means scholarshipproduced by scholars of Jewish studies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? This is an RfC. I gave my comment, and answered the question. We discussed this a long time ago and reached a consensus based on sources. Why not go back through the archives to see the discussions you missed? Or if you want to work on the article why not do the real research one has to do to write an encyclopedia article which yes, does indeed mean reading scholarly articles and books. I didn't come here to do your work. And if you do not want to do work related to this article, go somewhere else. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I provided my sources already. I am not going to waste time doing it again when you can find them in the archive. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here for the RfC. We should use the term "religion" in the first sentence. Leadwind ( talk) 04:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to read all the lengthy discusions above, so please excuse me if this has been said before. Collins, Nirvana, Cambridge University Press, 2010, page 10:
Such a distinction between a loose and general, but not useless, sense of a word and its lack of utility in contexts requiring more historical and interpretive accuracy is even more important in the case of the word 'religion'. Debates about the definition of the word, and whether it is a universal phenomenon in human life or not, have been and will no doubt remain endless. For myself, a loose, general conversational sense is acceptable: if someone were to ask me what is the majority religion in, say, Thailand or Burma, expecting a short, factual answer, it would seem best – and correct – simply to reply 'Buddhism' or perhaps 'Theravāda Buddhism', rather than churlishly to launch into a disquisition about the definition of the word, and the difficulty of applying it in many Buddhist (and other) contexts. In that general sense ... But ... it is a very much more difficult issue whether the kind(s) of Buddhist thought and practice discussed here [Theravada] are usefully so termed, and whether such a debate will achieve anything.
Although he's talking specifically about Buddhism, much of what he says is general. There's no consensus on the definition of religion, & some scholars maintain there's no such thing. In the light of this, an uncontextualized statement that something is (not) a religion might be considered weasel words. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
TBC Peter jackson ( talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If you add Tomoko Masuzawa's The Invention of the World's Religions I think that's a pretty good representation of those who have raised these kinds of issues. But if one measures those references against the literally millions of books and peer reviewed articles that simply use the term "religion" to refer to everything from the Judaism and Christianity to Sumbanese ancestor cults that's pretty minimal. There are also hundreds of thousands of professors who have appointments in "religious studies departments", or in the sociology of religion, or the anthropology of religion, the philosophy of religion, etc.. These are the "scholars of religion" that you refer to and they don't study a phantom phenomenon without a real referent. Sure there is no neat substantive or functional definition that everyone can agree upon but that's no different than other similar terms like "culture". Framing the discussion in terms of such a definition is a red herring. Scholars of religion generally agree to categorize various traditions of practice and belief as "religion" based upon a lose set of criteria. That criteria may be (or certainly may have been) most suitable for Christianity than for some others, but like I said, after that in terms of suitability is Judaism. Also these scholars who raise issues with "religion" are not specifically claiming that "Judaism is not a religion". I think the discussion they are part of is more appropriate for discussion by us at Religion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. In the meantime, as long as reliable sources call Judaism a religion so should we. These critiques also represent a very small minority (if not nonexistent) position when it comes to actual academic usage. For instance John Z. Smith clearly has no aversion to the term "religion" despite his controversial remark years ago. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make what I hope is a non-controversial proposal to edit the hatnote. The hatnote says that people should turn to the article on Jews for historical information. But we have a separate article on Jewish history that has existed in one form or anothe almost as long as the encyclopedia. I propose deleting the word "historical" from the current hatnote, and adding a second sentence, "For information on the historical dimension of Judaism, see Jewish history" I am not marrid to this wording, if people get my basic idea and agree with it but can come up with better wording, by all means, do so! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I should have written "For the historical aspect of Jewish identity" because that is what the hatnote currently says (what does "aspct" mean? i do not know, I am just trying to be conservative in sticking to the wording we have.) Like I wrote, above, I am not married to this phrasing. Do you think "For the history of" is better? Fine by me! I asked people to suggest improvements!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The history of the Jews is not covered in the Jews article. it is covered in the Jewish history article. If we are going to have a hatnote referring people to the Jews article, why not also refer them to the Jewish history article? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to have 17 footnotes needed in a short lead. It implies that the material discussed in the lead is not included in the body. If the subject is not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead, so a logical way to improve the article is by adding current lead topics to the body. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I am going to add a section on Rabbinic hermeneutics, featuring R. Ishmael's 13 rules of interpretation. I think this is important because right now the article focuses on the contents of Jewish beliefs and practices. But there is also a Jewish way of thinking, and therefore Judaism is not just static, it is creative, and the rules of interpretation provide Jews with an important way to derive new interpretatins of the Bible. Another reason this section is important is because these principles are often overlooked by non-Jews. Despite claims about a "Judeo-Christian" culture, most people identify logic with Aristotle and hermeneutics with Dilthe and later, Gadamer. The "Judeo" part seems to drop out completely. What I am adding is in many different editions of the prayerbook and should not be considered fringe, partisan, or otherwise controversial. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
All material in the article must come from some source. I have no problem explaining the word "hermeneutics" or using a simpler word. But I do not undestand the objection to the material itself. It is in the Talmud, the oral Law accepted by all Jews and a central text in Judaism; it is reprinted in most prayerbooks. This is far from esoteric, it is something taught to all Jewish boys (and in some cases girls) when they are young. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to "logic" which I think is a word more people understand. As for the source, feel free to add any other. Most siddurim i know have it. The Artscroll Siddur has it, do you prefer that as a source? The point is that these rules are so widely disseminated among Jews we could provide hundreds of sources if you wish. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It follows the section on Jewish literature, because it comes from two major elements of Jewish literature - the Talmud and the Siddur - and because it explains the basic principles by which Jews read that literature. You say "the rabbi" and really show your ignorance of Judaism. Most scholars agree "Rabbi Ishmael" is not just one person but the school associated with his name. More important, these pinciples associated with his name have been accepted by Judaism.
You ask why this should be accepted when Huston isnot - are you on some kind of vendetta? Are you angry that I questioned a source you liked? Are you trying to horse-trade, that you wil allow a source I like if I accept a source you like? THIS sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. The reason wew accept this is because it if rom the Talmud, which is along with the Tanakh the most important sacred literature in Judaism, and because this text, which is at least two thousand years old, has stood the test of time and continues to be studied and read by Jews and is so important in Judaism that it is guoted in full in our prayerbooks. I know of no heatred debate about the status of thse principles, but if you can find a reliable source that pressents another POV, add it.
THIS is how we collaborate on Wikipedia. I added sourced content in an NPOV way. There is nothing at all esoteric about this, anyone has access to it and it is read by Jews of all backgrounds and ages every day. BUT if you think there is some opposing view-point, please provide it. But do not just delete it because you do not like it. We do not put our own points of view into the article. I put this in because it is so widely used in Judaism and fills a big gap in the article. Please explain to me why you delete this section but not a section on religious doctrine when Judaism has no dogma or creed? But if you do not belive me, hey, just find a credible source that says a majority of Jews reject the thirteen pinciples of logic. Add useful knowledge, do not delete it. Adding this reveals to non-Jews a very important part of Judaism they do not know about. That makes it valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This section is at least as widely accepted among Jews as Mainmonides Ani Ma'amim which we include in the article. Be consistent: if we include Maimonide's thirteen principles of faith, in an article on a religion that has no creed and dogma, we should also include Rabbi Ishmael's thirtten principles of logic, in an article on a religion that does emphasize Torah study. Do include one and not the other smacks of an agenda. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Jews do not believe that the Torah consists solely of its written contents. They view the Torah as dynamic, because it contains within it a host of interpretations. The following are Rabbi Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic, for the interpretation of the Torah. These principles build on rules first proposed by Rabbi Hillel, and are found in the introduction to the Sifra, an early Midrash. They were later accepted by the sages of the Talmud, and are reproduced in many Jewish prayer books. They constitute an important Jewish contribution to logic and hermeneutics, and jurisprudence.
of other passages. [1]
The above section was removed per discussion and placed here for any other comments. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that reverting Sl and insisting he talk on the discussion page is disengenuous if no one responds to him. There was nothing in his edit that violated any principle that I know of. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 12:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It's true that this section consists almost entirely of original research. Some examples:
But Griswaldo is wrong about it being a primary source. It's a primary source about Rabbi Yishmael's principles. It's a secondary source about the Torah. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 16:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've also added requests for citations at the three points noted above, and fixed an extra line break in the middle of principle 13. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Slrubenstein, there are so many flaws in your argument, mostly related to what you personally think about what "all" Jewish boys learn and are taught," and the "Jewish way of thinking," that there's really nothing to respond to. It's total OR of your opinion. Even if you claimed to be Jewish, which you do only by implication with your username, it's still your personal opinions. You also shift the burden of "untruth" to others, by absurd demands:
I'll have to remember that when I can't support an edit: "Hey, prove me wrong with credible sources." And you then canvass for helpers, like you did on earlier challenged edits, who almost always stop by to back you up. And just in case all of that's not enough, you can always just accuse other editors of bad faith:
With such a formidable array of tools at your disposal you make it hard for others to improve the article. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was asked by Slrubenstein to comment. If I had been asked prima fascie whether the 13 rules should be included, my answer would have been negative. A review of a random page of Talmud indicates that there are many other ways of exegesis apart from the 13 rules (for instance hekesh, the concept of al tikra, the process of a tserichata etc). If we were to mention Ishmael's rules, which are important enough to have incorporated into the daily prayers, then they should only serve as an example and in that case I would not have reproduced them verbatim. As an example, however, they are unparalleled. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the reference works I've looked at in the last few minutes I'm satisfied that this example is probably the most notable. For instance, The Oxford Companion to the Jewish Religion, writes the following:
However the companion has very little on hermeneutics and the prominent exposition here still needs to be justified in relation to due weight in the entry. See below. Griswaldo ( talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As User:slrubenstein unilaterally restored a large mass of copied text that was removed with talk page explanation, and did so despite an early consensus by other editors to the removal, it would appear that he bypassed acceptable BRD protocol by forcing the disputed addition into this article. I feel that a removal of the material pending a proper consensus by neutral (i.e. unsolicited) editors would be reasonable so we can move on to fixing pre-existing problems with the article. For example: Section "Jewish religious texts" is simply a list without much context, except to say it is a list; "Jewish legal literature" is a large and unsourced section of OR; ditto "Jewish philosophy." These are all large subjects which we should be finding sources for, instead of wasting time. Let's keep it simple: Remove or Keep, pending consensus, proper discussion, and hopefully meaningful 3rd party citations to support and explain the material.
I appreciate Griswaldo's research. I think there is an underlying issue here, which is the distinction between "Rabbinic Judaism" and "Judaism." As a historical period, historians refer to Rabbinic Judaism as that period covering the composition of the Mishnah and the Talmud. As a religion, I think most Jews do not distinguish between Rabbinic Judaism and Judaism. For example, Jews do not consider the Talmud to be a text sacred just to the Rabbis, they consider it sacred for all Jews today. To the case in point, R. Ishmael's principles are printed in most sidurim, making them part of contemporary Judaism as well.
As to why hermeneutics are important, I think some of the Rishonim and Rambam too believed that these hermeneutical principles were revealed by God at Sinai. Even if they were not, they provide a crucial link between the Torah she biktav and Torah she baal peh. Tht three cornerstones of Judaism are Torah, prayer, and good deeds. Hermeneutics are the starting point of Torah study. Without these hermeneutics, we wouldn't know what kinds of work are forbidden by God on the Sabbath, for example.
I was asked an absolute question; now I will ask a relative question: why are Rambam's thirteen principles of faith more important than Jewish hermeneutics? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I only have my own opinion as to why you find the thirteen principles of faith in so many sources. In this matter, I think asking "who is the audience" is an important part of "why" but that is just my opinion. Be that as it may, I do not think we should simply immitate other encyclopedias. Most prayerbooks have Ishmael's 13 forms of logic, and that is for a Jewish audience, so that tells me something about what Jews think is important to other Jews.
I would not mind wittling down the thirteen forms of logic, if we also whittled down Rambam's thirteen elements of faith. This seems reasonable given that the article itself emphasizes that Judaism is not a creedal religion, does not have a dogma. Note what the section says about Josephus, and how even today what es essential is the Bible and commentaries like the talmud (of which Ishmael's hermeneutics are very veyr important). Rambam's 13 principles of faith were contested for two centuries, but Ishmael's thirteen principles of logic were never contested (although it is true there are other hermeneutical principles besides Ishmael's). Many Jewish authorities have said Judaism is a religion of law not faith. Shouldn't our article reflect that? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, I was being elliptical so you missed my point. If all we do is imitate other encyclopedias and popular texts, we serve no purpose - might as well just let people use the encyclopedias they already have access to. Wikipedia should be something different and should just be based on its own principles: first, Be bold!. Then, a wiki-pedia, that is written by anyone and everyone, not some editorial board for Oxford University Press. If editors here acting in good faith can agree that what anyone added is informative, that is generally sufficient. Finally, our core pore policies (which come after being bold and being wiki), which act as a brake on an editor abusing the wiki technology: NPOV, NOR, and V, and I believe I have complied with all three. And I believe I have been accountable to the "wiki" community - other editors ask me why I think this is important, and I take their queries seriously, and try to respons seriously. As a fellow member of the wikicommunity I have a responsibility to explain myself to you - but I have no responsibility to hold my edits accountable to the editorial boards of major reference works. Any WP editor who wished to do so should leave WP and seek a job for one of those standard reference works. Is the result different from Encyclopedia Britanica or other standard references? I hope so. If I didn't I would have zero interest in Wikipedia. I already have access to a great encyclopedia put together the usual way. I don't need something that mimics it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
As some have pointed out, there are other hermeneutical principles. Following the lead of the section on faith and creed, where Ani Maamim is put in a text-box, I have put Ishmael's thirteen middot in a textbox. I have also mentioned a few other major sets of hermeneutical principles, and have added a quote from Neusner. Frankly, I think more can and should be said about (1) the place of these principles both in the Talmud and Midrash as texts to be studied, and (2) as rules (themselves divinely revealed??) by which the Torah she baal peh was transmitted over the centuries (3) as rules used to study the Torah and Talmud. I really welcome the input of others Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This section should be renamed for accuracy. The content is not about some general Jewish principles of logic but specifically about Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics or Talmudic Hermeneutics. Something like Jewish Interpretation of the Torah or Torah Hermeneutics would work. The section may not be in the best place either. Thoughts? Griswaldo ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that this belongs in the same section as the one that includes the Talmud and Midrash. I suggest that we have one section on sacred literature (Torah to the Talmud) and a separate section for non-sacred commentaries and philosophy, or if it makes more sense for literature (of any sort, exigetical, commentary, philosophy) from the rishonim on. Thoughts? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so far the debate over the hatnote is 3-2, which I would say is too close to justify any change. So we have a hatnote that says that people looking for historical information should go to Jews plus we have an article Jewish history. Yet we have material in this article on Jewish history. I propose it be moved either to the article on Jews or the article on jewish history. Does anyone object if I move it? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Bus stop, although I appreciate your views on the topic. To reply to Wikiwatcher: Perhaps you misinterprete my proposal. I agree with you that it would be folly to try "to surgically remove" historical material that is interwoven throughout the text. My proposal is to remove the section that is excplicitly and exclusively on Jewish history viz. section 7. There isnothing surgical about this. This entire section can and should easily be merged with the history article.
As to your comparison with my recent addition (which, by the way, had NO esoteric content, and is not about anything esoteric); the two are in no way analogous. This article begins with a hatnote telling readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish history - it does not begin with a hatnote asking readers to go elsewhere for information on Jewish hermeneutics. Moreover, the history section really is not a history of "Judaism," it is a history of the Jews, and clearly fits into other articles; Jewish hermeneutics is a central aspect of Judaism "as a religion" which is something you proclaim to care about. Finally, I was able to summarize Jewish hermeneutics in a relatively small section. Jewish history simply cannot be so summarized. So I see no basis for your analogy. No one is questioning the importance of Jewish history and if your only argument is that Jewish history is important, you loose. Jewish history is covered in a prominent article on Jewish history, an article that gives it full attention.
Bus stop is right, covering Jewish history here breaks up the flow, doesn't fit with the article, and cannot be done effectively. Also, making sure that our coverage of one topic in three different articles remains consistent can be a real headache. I repeat what I said at the beginning: a suggestion to get rid of the hat note has failed. So we keep the hat note. It is absurd on its face to agree to keep the hatnote and then to structure this article in a way that explicitly contradicts the hatnote. I am just asking that this article be what it claims to be about, and not be abot what it claims not to be about. Where is the objection? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So you have absolutely nothing against the proposal? Good. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? I thought you misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing removing any nistorical context that is interwoven with the account of Judaism, which is what you were referign to. I am talking about section 7, a summary of Jewish history. Are you proposing that we delete the word "historical" from the hatnote, or that we merge the contents from the Jewish history article into this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion appears to have ended |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article currently has a quote from Mark Twain. Another editor considered this unbalanced, and added another quote from Mark Twain. I think any editor might wonder why this article should have two quotes from Mark Twain. Frankly, I am not sure why we need one quote from Mark Twain, who certainly was no expert in Jewish Studies. But the first quote I suppose could be argued to be presenting a generally held view of Jews, a view that might be held by Jews as well as by Gentiles. The new quote however seemed to me to serve only one of two purposes: to illustrate that southern US Jews following the Civil War were predatory exploiters, or illustrating that Mark Twain was anti-Semitic. The former is too specific an example to belong in an article that is about Judaism in general; the latter belongs in an article on mark Twain, not here. So I see no justification for adding the quote, it gives grossly undue-weight to Mark Twain or his opinions. So I deleted it. Now, if someone objects to the first Twain quote, they should register their objection here and we could discuss deleting the first Twain quote. But there is just no reason at all why an article on Judaism should have so much Mark Twain content. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the study of Torah, and a text on how to study Torah that is found in all major Jewish prayerbooks and thus read every day by all observant Jews, is way too much for an article on Judaism - I mean, how are these things even related? What the article on Judaism really needs is more stuff by Mark Twain, the most important Jewish thinker of the 19th century and read by all Jews daily, um, well, I think ... Yeah, this is a persuasive argument! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Victor9876, this article is not the place for random quotes about Jews; see WP:UNDUE. Also, I've removed your insertion at Elizabeth Taylor, since it violated WP:MOSBIO, which I suggest you review. Jayjg (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
First Slrbenstein, you have apparently not read the Twain treatise in its entirety, Twain is not making the case of being anti-Semetic, just making observations that most Gentiles of his time, would not have bothered with, and I mention earlier, tried to make the case of assimilation by the Jews into their host culture, and that the hatred for the Jews by whites, was more economic than religious, but surely, both were the case. Nor, am I anti-Semetic. I happen to agree with the Palestinians in Gaza over the land issues, they are Semites as well. That does not make me a Jew hater either, which I am reading in your taunts to have me be uncivil. Every editor has several choices how they edit, not the 1, 2, 3, that you elude to. My experience on WP says remove something from an article, it gets reverted, include something, it gets deleted, so to prevent 3RR's and edit warring, I have tried to develop a strategy that works best for everyone, since few use the talkpage before moving ahead boldly as the rules suggest. You are being disengenuous in your suggestions that you were trying a study of your own, and I can say it without numbers, why didn't you remove it yourself since you mentioned you didn't think it was appropriate? You are no Freud. In fact, your page and self-acknowledgments make you more of a narcissist, than a scientist. That being said, my Narcissism is better than your narcissism (lol)! Victor9876 ( talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(od) Personally, best to see Twain gone here. He's not a scholar, at best his (full) comments (both about Jewish survival and unbecoming conduct on the part of Jews) belong in an article discussing the evolving image of Jews in popular society over time—and to what degree it matched contemporary Jewish self-image would be of interest as well. It's not for this article. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, there's no point in including cherry-picked quotes from Mark Twain, unless they are extremely famous and highly relevant. Otherwise WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR apply. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Never the twain shall meet?
16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
|