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 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Regarding this edit, reverted by me and restored by Ewawer, I consider the prior version to be superior. I can't fully understand the reason for the change, since Ewawer didn't explain it. Judaism is unquestionably the religion of the Jewish people, even if not all of them practice it. Please discuss here so we can avoid a revert war. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 02:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that traditionally and generally Judaism is a religion practiced by the Jewish people. However, there are some Jews, unquestioningly halachically Jewish, who are not practising Jews. Some may even be actively anti-religious. There are even people who were born halachically Jewish, and convert to, say, Christianity, and would still be regarded halachically as a member of the Jewish people. Perhaps the point wouldn't operate in the opposite direction, but who knows. The point is that Judaism is a religion, and should stand and be discussed on that basis, separely from the ethnic/peoplehood basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewawer ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your argument really goes to the point, Ewawer. Among other things, I'm quite certain that Jews who convert to Christianity are not considered halakhically Jewish. Among other things, they forfeit their right of return to the State of Israel when they make such a conversion. Further, although there are many Jews who are halakhically, ethnically and culturally Jewish who do not practice their religion, and who may be actively anti-religious, I don't see how this makes it any less true to call Judaism the religion of the Jewish people. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as English is the language of the English people, Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Some Jews may not practice Judaism, just as some Englishmen and -women may not speak English. As a general statement, Steven is right. The older language was clearer. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the analogy with English and Englishmen is applicable. However, I think though I've made my point, its not worth pursuing because both points are valid. -- Ewawer ( talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all major secondary sources on Jewish history or theology would agree, judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. this proposition does not mean that all Jews are religious. In fact, the foundational text of Judaism (the Bible) makes it very clear that lots of Jews regularly abandon Judaism. From one perspective, the whole drama of the Tanakh is the constant courting, abandonment, and reconciliation of the Jewish people and God as the central narrative of Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we all just agree with Ewawer and admit that Judaism and the Jewish people have absolutely nothing to do with each other? JGC1010 ( talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of the covenant. For example when Jews say a mi-shebayrach they invoke the covenant with their forefathers, not their rabbis nor their prophets. A fast such as Tisha b'av commemorates an attack on the religion whereas the fast of Esther commemorates an attack on the people - modern religious practice covers both aspects. At Passover followers of the religion consider themselves to have been liberated from Egypt personally, tying the religion inextricably to the people and history. All the people do not follow the religion, but all followers of the religion must consider themselves part of the people. 78.146.203.162 ( talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Jon

I'm back to clarify that I never meant to imply that Judaism and the Jewish people have nothing to do with each other. I just object to the work "of". I think a term such as "historically associated with" is more suitable. Ewawer ( talk) 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Historically associated" is inappropriate. "Of" is. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaism originates from the hebrew tribe Juda. Other Hebrew tribes have had religions that variates from Juda tribes beliefs largely or some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand Jewish history and the history of Judaism. Read Shaye JD Cohen's books on the history of the emergence of "the Jews." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read. Hebrews originates from north-mesopotamia.

ASEOR2 ( talk) 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I think the article as is, is extremely accurate and hope it stays that way. -- 78.86.159.199 ( talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

i was wandering about this sentence, is it a mistake or does it meamn something else?(the word jealous)

"the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, jealous, transcendent God"

If it means what it looks like i dont think it should be here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1icemage1 ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be right, doesn't it say in the Torah - "For I - the Lord your G-d, am a jealous G-d." 86.29.229.81 ( talk) 13:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It means that you are not supposed to have any other gods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.61.208 ( talk) 05:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it means that G-d would be "jealous" of idols if you were to worship them rather than Him. ---Skyler (:^| 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyler13 ( talk • contribs)

I admit that this is just a personal opinion and implies no suggested edit to the article. But, in reference to Twain's claim that the Jew perdures, "exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age," it seems to me that the desire of many Jews to call attention to the grand (and disproportionate) accomplishments of their race is indeed a sign of decay and infermity of age. The authors of the Bible by contrast devote much of their energies to detailing the weaknesses and faults of the Children of Israel (yes, I now the exceptions). They even structured much of the Bible around the faults of our heroes - Moses sinned and could not enter the land of Canaan. David sinned and the rest of his life was cursed. The stories of Jacob's and Joseph's successes coincide with their learning humility. In the Bible, our ancestors praised God. Today we praise ourselves. I am not sure this change is something to be proud of. I am often critical of people who use talk pages as soapboxes and hope you will forgive my putting in my two cents here. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A well known quote by Mark Twain was just added to the "Jewish demographics" section. The quote contains little to no information on Judaism and seems to me that it would be better placed at Jew or a related article. Comments? -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaz added an etymology, without providing any sources or explanations. I know of no reliable sources for th eetymology Kaz provided, but if there are any it is certainly a fringe view. Jewish historians and English etymologists do not dispute that the word Judaism derives from the Hebrew name, Judah. I have provided a citation from Shaye Cohen, a leading historian of the Jews and Judaism, and from the online OED, a leading authority on English etymology. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why European POV should win over linguistics. The etymology of Yahadut was cited by Rabbi Yitzchok Sufrin of London's Lubavitch House in a lecture in April 2006, so I presume it is hardly a "Fringe" view perhaps anyone who doubts should take up the matter with an orthodox Rabbi or at least a Hebrew linguist? Yahadut (יהדות) indicates the establishment of oneness or unity and is a reference to Monotheism. It is supposed to be a pun on the word יחיד -we should remember that the word "Judaism" does not actually exist in Hebrew, if it did it would be יהודהות which simply does not work. Perhaps it is not appropriate to mention יהדות in the opening sentence at all but better to insert an etymology section explaining the differences?Kaz 02:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What next, Gematriya? Slrubenstein | Talk 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a pity that regardless of the potential flaw in the etymology suggested, the intelligent request for an etymology discussion section in keeping with the pattern on many of the articles on Wikipedia was met with such a strange response. 82.6.29.26 ( talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is a bit gung-ho in describing Judaism as "always fiercely monotheistic" - while this is true of mature Judaism, it is definitely worth mentioning that this was clearly not always true of the historical Israel. Quite apart from scholarly input which rather steps on this idea, if this was true then the prophets would have had nothing to complain about. If the majority of the population was worshipping other Gods, then in what meaningful sense was "Israel" montheistic? The most that can be said is that those who wrote and compiled the texts were monotheistic Cruci ( talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dearest friends!

Just now I wanted to add info about Messianic Judaism to chapter Judaism of Wikipedia, the famous on-line encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

But one man removed my text and wrote: Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) m (94,101 bytes) (Christian view of Judaism, view that Jews are inauthentic) (Messianic Judaism is not considered Judaism by Jews or Christians)

Then I added my info again and again Malik Shabazz removed text and wrote: Messianic Judaism, which is not considered Judaism.

I don't understand why do someone must to consider Messianic Judaism is Judaism? Are international documents which prohibit us to write there is Messianic Judaism?

Here is my text (below).

Shalom- Vlad

Messianic Judaism

Messianic judaism is international movement of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Yeshua (Jesus). There are hundreds Messianic Jewish congregations and synagogues in the world.

"Messianic Judaism is a movement of Jewish congregations and congregation-like groupings committed to Yeshua the Messiah that embrace the covenantal responsibility of Jewish life and identity rooted in Torah, expressed in tradition, renewed and applied in the context of the New Covenant." - From the statement affirmed by the Delegates to the 23rd Annual UMJC Conference on July 31, 2002" http://www.umjc.net/content/blogsection/3/58/

"...the Messianic synagogue movement, a movement committed to our Jewish heritage, traditions, people and life."

"As Messianic Jews, then, we have accepted Yeshua as the Messiah and have accepted G-d's provision of atonement through him. We acknowledge him as the one who fulfilled our prophets' predictions and who rose from the dead, a fact concerning which history bears eloquent testimony. This historical evidence brought Orthodox Jewish scholar, Pinhas Lapide, to acknowledge (Time, May 7, 1979, pp. 88f; cf. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective): "his Ressurrection was a Jewish affair...he is a dead Jew revived by the will of God." http://menorahministries.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladislav1968 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed to death on this talk page. Have a look at the archive. A clear consensus has been reached that information about Messianic Judaism belongs at that page, not here. Although Malik was the first to notice and revert your edits, I can assure you that there are plenty of other editors who will do the same. This is obviously a WP:DEADHORSE. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote at your Talk page, the article about Messianic Judaism says that "Jews of all denominations and many Christians do not consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism". Since there is a consensus view outside Wikipedia that Messianic Judaism is not Judaism, it doesn't belong in this article. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Schreiber Publishing introduces JudaismWiki, a new website inspired by Wikipedia with an emphasis on Jewish topics. JudaismWiki serves as a source of information on Jewish subjects, as well as a community portal linking Jews around the world. The website can be edited and improved upon by anyone, from anywhere across the globe. With your help, JudaismWiki can become an even more valuable resource for Jews internationally.

To visit the website, click here: http://judaismwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

208.176.89.53 ( talk) 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish history and doctrines have influenced other religions such as Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith."

This line states an opinion as fact. Islam is considered to be a return to the true message of Abraham. This may be the case for the other two faiths mentioned, but I don't know. The line should either be changed to 'It is believed that..." or something else to indicate that it is a disputed opinion.

A similar debate is noted in the article itself: "Yet some scholars advocating for Zoroaster's influence claim credit for that religion having influenced Judaism. Judaism, however, asserts that there are no other religions -- there are only Jews and non-Jewish gentiles."

Evidence from the Qur'an that this is a tenet of Islam: "Abraham was neither a "Jew" nor a "Christian", but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto God; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him." Chapter Al-Imran, verse 67 —Preceding unsigned comment added by C3young ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. In response I have two comments. First, the two claims are not mutually exclusive. An analogy: Zoroastrianism for example influenced Judaism, ebven though Jews see Judaism as a response to the covenant between Abraham and God, renewed by Moses at Sinai and in the desert. Second, there is a matter of semantics. Jews use Jewery and Judaism to refer to the tradition that begins with Abraham, although the word derives from the word Judah, which was the dominant kingdom during the Hellenistic period. That said, Jews acknowledge that Abraham was the father of other nations besides the Israelite or Jewish nation. So Jewish belief is complex on this issue: Jews consider themselves alone to be the principle heirs of Abraham's covenant with God, but also recognize for example that Arabs are heirs to another covenant between Abraham and God ... in short, I think that your point is valid and minimaly it should be clear that this is what Jews believe. But I think that what jews believe (or what sacred Jewish texts claim) is more complicated than this and perhaps others can suggest ways ti express the nuances more clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been discusses before. I think the article is fine, even though I personally beleive Zoroastrianism has a bigger part to play. -- 78.86.159.199 ( talk) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Jews so intolerant of other faiths? Appreciating that this page is under vandal attack, I must ask since someone - Slrubenstein - undid a very minor edit (a single word) where I inserted that Judaism influenced my own religion - Brahmoism. I do not claim that Judaism is influenced *by* Brahmoism in any way, but wanted to acknowledge that a great old religion Judaism influenced the development of a relatively new World religion - even if in a small way. I specified in the title to my edit the similarities we perceive in the first 5 Maimonindes principles to our own God. Our founder Ram Mohan Roy studied Judaism and knew the Hebrew language. I hope that some people here will read our story Brahmo to see if there is any influence. Ronosen ( talk) 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how tolerance of other faiths is an issue. A claim was made - that Brahmoism was also influenced by Judaism - and no evidence was provided. That there are similarities between two religions does not prove that one influenced the other. Only now do you say that Ram Mohan Roy studies Judaism - I did not know that. It is still not quite the same thing as saying he was influenced by Judaism. Please consult our WP:NOR policy. If you have a reliable and verifiable source (see WP:RS and WP:V that states that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism, by all means put it back in. The influence of Judaism on Christianity is self-evident and widely known; Muhammed speaks highly of Moses in the Koran or at least the Hadit. Please understand that Brahmoism is not as well-known and my saying this is a sign neither of intolerance nor disdain. I just think NOR demands a reliable and verifiabl source that explicitly states that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Jewish and Christian Prophets and their stories are mentioned in the Quran and the ahadith, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Ishmael, Issac, and more. This does not necessarily imply influence. The Islamic view is that all of these prophets came with the same message as Muhammad, but their teachings were partially lost and distorted over time. According to the OED, the verb influence means "to affect the condition of, to have an effect on." According to the Islamic viewpoint, Judaism had no effect on the message of Islam. The basic message from God was unchanging and was revealed multiple times out of need. Ok, I've made my case and I will let it rest. :) C3young ( talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the claim that Judaism influenced Islam is just one view, among others, and not "the truth." And it is a view that ought to be traced to a reliable and verifiable source. I hope whoever put this into the article can provide the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen, my replies are embedded in yours because so much of what you say makes no sense to me:

Dear Mr.Slrubenstein. Your point about NOR and verifiable sources is well taken.

This makes sense; thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk

Accordingly I am providing an official Government of India biography of Ram Mohan Roy from the Press & Information Ministry of India which claims that Roy studied Judaism (in addition to other religions). The URL is http://pib.nic.in/feature/feyr2002/fmay2002/f020520021.html . I do not know if you will recognise this because this same government for many years did not recognise the State (country) of Israel.

This does not make sense. Why does it mater whether India did or did not recognize Israel? Is there any place in our WP:V or WP:RS policy that states that a source must recognize Israel for it to be reliable or verifiable? I do not understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course this only states that Roy "studied" Judaism and is not conclusive proof that Brahmoism was influenced by Judaism.

Then you do not have a source that Judaism influenced Brahmoism. Then how is this source relevant? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

However, we find significant similarities between the Brahmo Dharma beej of 1850 and some tenets of Judaism such as Maimonides.

I already said, that two religions are similar does not mean that one influenced the othe. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You will appreciate that these issues are unproveable and matters of faith and I do not doubt yours.

Wikipedia is unconcerned with faith or proof. You either have a verifiable source for a given view, or you do not. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I leave it up to you to do the right thing.

The only right thing at issue is compliance with Wikipedia policy.

Brahmos are highly unlikely to claim that they are Jews (of any kind) or distort / vandalise your religion/faith.

Irrelevant, so what? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My Brahmo religion specifically prohibits reviling or disparaging other faiths whilst emphasising strengthening the bonds between *men* of different faiths.

Relevant to the article on Brahmoism, not to the point at hand. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally have not known many Jews (Judaists) as there are so few in India, I was lucky to have a learned tutor - his name was Ezra - he had a PhD and attended synagogue and I learnt many things from him besides Mathematics.

Editor's personal feelings or experiences are not really relevant. My views are bnot relevant. Your views are not relevant. Please read our WP:NOR and WP:V policies. What matters is not what you or I know but whether a notable view can be traced to a verifiable source. I do not understand why you say this. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your wishes to scrutinise all the other faiths which claim to have been influenced by Judaism. Sincerely. Ronosen ( talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess, but I do not ask you to respect my wishes and you do not have to respect my wishes, this is irrelevant. Both of us have to respct Wikipedia policies. This is the only issue I raies. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User SL.Rubenstein. I must apologise on behalf of my (enthusiastic) young co-religionist Ronosen who has been troubling you on this page. Whereas what he says may be true it is almost unproveable and hence not suitable for inclusion here and is on the lines of http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Abraham.htm which shall corrupt both our religions. My rebuke to him was almost on the lines of your detailed rebuttal when he approached me. With your permission, we would like to get past this conversation. Many thanks and our apology. Yvantanguy ( talk) 12:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add a Link to the page JUDAISM under general links:

JudaismWiki.com - the source for everything Jewish [1]

Thanks

Morry Schreiber Website Administrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malkizedek ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for comments concerning the section "Distinction between Jews and Judaism". A single scholar is being used to present an interesting, but certainly not widely known or accepted, opinion about Jewish identity. This is especially egregious in an important article such as Judaism. Comments? 38.117.213.19 ( talk)

I think the basic view supported by the Boyarin quote - that Jewish history extands past the development of Western concepts of "nation," "race" and "religion" and that Judaism and the Jews do not easily fall into any of these categories - is widely accepted by Jewish historians. There is a considerable amount of writing on the debates among Jews at the time of the Enlightenment as to how to characterize themselves in Western terms like nation or religion. The case of Napolean's Sanhedrin is a classic case. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources please for the wide acceptance of Boyarin's views? If none are provided, the article will be edited to reflect the lack of sources. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete verifiable POVs, add others. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. An article should not give undue weight to a single POV. An entire section devoted to Boyarin's views in a fundamental article such as "Judaism" is ridiculous. Again, please provide sources for the "wide acceptance" (your words) for Boyarin's views. Otherwise the article will be edited. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The relevant policy from WP:NPOV#Undue weight "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Good luck finding sources. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a guy with a PhD in Talmud from JTS who has a named professorship at UC Berkeley, and whose works have been published by UC press and journals like Critical Inquiry is clearly a notable scholar. And virtually every modern historian of the Jews i know of have commented that debates over whether the Jews are a race, nation, or members of a religion are primarily a 19th century phenomenon and these categories are exogenous to Judaism. I do not know of any exceptions among modern scholars but if you do feel free to add these other points of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not he is a notable scholar. The relevant Wiki policy is that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Is he or is he not a tiny minority view? If he is not, then the POV presented must be presented as "one view held by modern scholars etc." and well sourced without mention by name of a solitary scholar- unless he founded this school of thought or is fundamental to it in some way. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 16:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps a better way of formatting this section would be to state the issue (i.e. what is Judaism's relationship to Jewish identity) and then source the relevant widely held different views. Please understand that I do not advocate the censoring of views I do not agree with. I merely ask for Wikipedia standards to be met, and the differing views to be well sourced, relevant, clearly presented, and NPOV. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 16:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion about formatting makes a lot of sense. For the record, my sense is that Boyarin is expressing a widely held view - not that he personally developed this view and that lots of people came to support him. In other words, the problem may be the way it is written. I used Boyarin only because his specific quote was so handy and concise, and the section emphasizes Boyarin because I wanted to be clearly complying with WP:V i.e. clearly identifying this as a view, not "the truth." Perhaps we can reword it so it is clear Boyarin is voicing a view held by many modern scholars without suggesting it originated with him. And I completely agree with your idea of formatting it to include other views. My understanding is that Orthodoxy and Reform, at least in the 19th centuries, squarely identified Judaism as a religion while early Zionists for the most part identified the Jews as a nation. My understanding of the mainstream view of modern scholars (i.e. not theologians or rabbis but people studying Jews and Judaism from the outside, as it were) is that the distinction between religion and nation is foreign to Judaism and with the Enlightenment, Jews were often forced to pick one or the other, and many did. This is not of course necessarily the "view from the inside" (or views) and I am all for formatting the section to accomodate all these views. For now I ask that you accept in good faith that Boyarin is voicing one notable view, widespread among scholars teaching in secular institutions (although it may well be shared by religious Jews). I'd never claim that it is the only view. I do think itis important - as this section grows not only to list diverse views but to contextualize them e.g. why would some Zionists and some religious Jews have different views; why might some Reform and some Orthodox Jews agree, at least on some things; why might scholars at secular institutions have different views from Jews? and so on. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have reached some kind of agreement concerning the ideal for this section. Now if someone would only find the time to do the necessary research...... 38.117.213.19 ( talk)

"...In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million people—41 percent in Israel and 59 in the diaspora.[3]"

Suggested Revision: "In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million people--41 percent of this population residing in Israel, and the remaining 59 percent throughout the diaspora."

Spydre ( talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Spydre, I have taken your suggestion and applied the idea to my previous edit. Your phrasing wasn't perfect either, but I have improved that sentence borrowing from you. Thanks a lot (And I mean it). Marcus2 ( talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What are these shtuyot doing on this page? This section belongs elsewhere, perhaps in "secular interpretations of Jewish history" but not smearing the front page of the Judaism section. It's ridiculous to present Judaism as a serious religion, only to reduce it's foundations to a culturally adapted narrative based on nothing but the superstitious of a long extinct, highly immoral people. 213.8.159.151 ( talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This article contradicts the Jewish Encyclopedia 1905 on several major points. What is written is diametrically opposed to the Jewish encyclopedia article. So: 1) Read the Jewish Encyclopedia article 2) Make notes of the main points there 3) If you are going to write as a debating opponent of that article, then you need to say where these arguments come from (give sources) RPSM ( talk) 12:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't even think we should be using an encyclopedia as a primary reference in Wiki articles. Certainly there must be a plethora of scholarly papers and publications on Judaism with which one can work. And isn't the point of the article to describe the scholarly consensus (and dissension) abot Judaism? Now, I realize that I am an outsider to the edit work being done here, but that doesn't prevent me from expressing my concern that we don't seem to know what direction to take for this project. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 04:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905 is what's called a tertiary source, which is definitely not as desirable a source as secondary sources. The reason the text is there is that in the early days of Wikipedia, when it was mostly empty and many of its policies and guidelines had not yet been formulated, a great number of articles were created by copying and pasting from various public domain sources, including the Jewish Encyclopedia 1905. This allowed Wikipedia to grow very quickly and the public domain sources were fine as a starting point. Now that things have moved a little further along, it's always better to have information from secondary sources. There is a tag that should be used on articles mentioning the public domain source, which I will endeavor to find and add to the article. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 07:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think the tag is needed, because I don't see how it incorporates any of the text. The article seems to me to be rather well sourced as it is. If anyone thinks there are things that should be changed, either be bold and change them, or discuss proposed changes here. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Would people agree that it would be better to avoid using the term 'Old Testament' in an article about Judaism? If so, what would be better - 'Hebrew Bible' or 'Hebrew Scriptures'? Calindreams ( talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer Hebrew Bible. Of course, if it comes up specifically in reference to Christianity, i.e. the Christian Bible, we should say "Old Testament." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms 'Old Testament' appears frequently in the sention 'Canaanite Reliogious Heritage'. For the moment I will change these to Hebrew Bible, which is at least more preferable to Old Testament. This is the first time I will have made an adit to a main page, so please let me know if I make any mistakes. Calindreams ( talk) 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise the page was locked, I'm not sure how exactly you'd go about it. Calindreams ( talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed them to "Tanakh" Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just typed in "judaization" in order to add a quote by Lev Leviev and was redirected to Judaism! How did this happen? How can Judaization by equated with Judaism in such a way? First of all, the term judaization is often a pejorative term used to criticize Israeli planning policy (except when used by those who advocate it such as settlement-funders like Lev Leviev). Second, "judaization" is not a noun in the same sense as "Judaism", in that it implies a process of transforming a geographic space that is not Jewish into a space that is. The term "judaization" deserves its own entry, but should not be redirected to this page. Comments? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 04:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a bold edit on that page and redirected it to Judaizers instead. Hopefully this resolves the issue. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 04:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaism (from the Greek Ioudaïsmos, derived from the Hebrew יהודה, Yehudah, "Judah";[1] in Hebrew: יַהֲדוּת, Yahedut, the distinctive characteristics of the Judean eáqnov[2]) is the religion of the Jewish people. In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million people—41% of whom lived in Israel.[3]

Judaism is a monotheistic religion - no, it is not a religion as Christianity is: it is a "way of life" governing clothes, wearing apparel, diet, and every aspect of life and has more of affinity with Hinduism in this respect, or Budhism, Islam, Jainism etc.

based on principles and ethics embodied in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)

No, it is based around the history of the Jewish people as expounded in the Tanakh, as well as the Oral Law (which governs, for example how the shohet wields the knife (five aspects of knife technique: sharpness, lack of irregularities and nicks etc etc) qeri and ktabh in the torah (variations in pronounciation from the written text. In Judaism and Islam, there is an important legal distinction between law (halakha, shariya) and tradition or custom (minhag and these should not be confused as the author of this text does.

as further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts.

Yes, partly correct. But the Talmud is an exposition of the Oral Law that previously not permitted to be written down and was learned by heart until it was feared it could be lost. The Oral Law in many respects is primary - see first posuq (verse) of Pirqe Abhoth. Moses handed it down to the elders ... The Oral Law is not an addition to the written Law.

Judaism is among the oldest religious traditions still being practiced today. Jewish history and the principles and ethics of Judaism have influenced other religions, such as Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'í Faith.

Judaism and Islam are very close - even in terminology; terms such as taharah, rahum, hanun are identical. meny identical elements. In modern Judaism, central authority is not vested in any single person or body, but in sacred texts, traditions, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws.

The central authority was the Sanhedrin. If that is what you mean, say so. The central authority of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest was taken over by the Pope. He adopted the dress of the High Priest, and the Christian Church regarded itself as having taken over from Judaism. So from a Christian perspective, Judaism does not have a central authority and this is peculiar. But Islam has no one central authority either and in this respect Judaism and Islam are the same - there is no "church" with an Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope at the top, but many heads of indívidual communities

According to Jewish tradition, Judaism begins with the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), the patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people.

What tradition? Do you mean minhag? There is no Jewish tradition about "Judaism" The word "Judaism is not mentioned in the bible, and Jew, and Jews onlyl in Esther, when the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jew is from Yehudah, one of the tribes, so how could "Judaism" (the religion of the tribe of Judah apply say to the tribe of Levi, who served in the Temple?

According to Jewish tradition, Judaism begins with the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), the patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people.

No, it begins with the creation. The Jewish deity is the creator of the world and this is very important and central. The bible begins with the creation so why argue with that? Every time a Jew eats an apple or any piece of fruit, or anything, he mentions the creator and the creation in a blessing. The Sabbath distinguishes the Jewish people as it is a reminder of the creation Zekher lema'aseh bereishith Are you trying to improve on the Hebrew bible?

Throughout the ages, Judaism has adhered to a number of religious principles,

Really? How many? What principles? Waffle, waffle.

Judaism cannot adhere to principles. Jews are told to do mitzvoth - commandments (613) not ten.

No practice is more important than belief - uzekhartem eth kol mitzvothai, va'asithem otham. - and you shall remember all my mitzvoth (commandments) and do them. Many repetitions throughout the Hebrew bible to put mitzvoth into practice. In Judaism, belief in one particular rabbi's exposition has no real significance, whereas Christians killed each other (and Jews) for believing one explanation and not another. The central role in Christianity of believing something that is practically impossible to believe or even understand (it is a mystery) derives from Gnosticism. Converts to Christianity and those taking first Communion in the Church are tested on what they believe: Jews never subject converts or bar mitzvah boys to this. It is important primarily to keep the mitzvoth - kashruth and shomer shabbath, and of course ethical rules and festivals. The existence of the Creator is taken for granted.

If this were understood, then Sweden and Switzerland would perhaps stop trying to legislate to prevent Jews carrying out their religion which is based to a large extent on food and how it is prepared. This derives from the Temple service, which was holy, and consisted centrally of animal sacrifices that provided meals for the priests (Cohanim) who did not own agrucultural land. Some sacrifices, such as the Passover lamb, could be eaten by non priests.

Being yotzer means "having fulfilled one's obligation" about a particular mitzva (commandment) and the doing of the commandment counts, not believing in principles (creed, dogma) which is important in Christianity (which comes from Gnosticism, where salvation comes from secret knowledge) This is the key difference between Christianity and Judaism that Kaufman Kohler points out in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 in the articles he wrote on Judaism, Christianity, Paul of Tarsus. Odd that this article plagarizes his introduction to the article Judaism, and then goes on to disregard all of the points K makes about the differences between Judaism and Christianity.

the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

No, belief does not have the central role that it does in Christianity. No mitzvah is more important than any other, because it says that "you shall do all my mitzvoth" (third paragraph of the Shemang.

According to Jewish tradition, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Israelites and their descendants

yes, but before He did that, he created a covenant between the descendants of Noah (by tradition, the whole of the world) in the rainbow, which makes it rather stupid to begin with Abraham and not with the creation and then Noah. See Noachite religion. Noachite laws were in force in second temple times for the population entering the outer Temple courtyard.

Judaism considered itself a universal religion with a double set of covenants: the ones between Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that apply to Jews, and the Noachite covenant that applies to all mankind. Salvation for Jews is by keeping 613 commandments: for non Jews the same "portion in the world to come" can be had by keeping seven: the seven Noachite laws.

Christianity changed Judaism from a universal religion to a particular national one according to Kaufman Kohler (author of JE 1906 article)

and revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. Judaism has traditionally valued Torah study and the observance of the commandments recorded in the Torah and as expounded in the Talmud.

not wrong, but Judaism is the observance of commandments, which is more than "traditionally valued ... observance of the commandments ... You may be trying to get round Reform Judaism's abrogation of the Torah, but at the same time watering down what Judaism is.

All in all, uniformed. RPSM ( talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RPSM, I've noticed that you've made a number of objections to the content of this article in the past little while. Why don't you go ahead and start making changes to those aspects you find deficient? Better yet, maybe you or someone else could revive interest in editing this article? Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is locked::::::::::::What is worse, it has been translated into Swedish with all its faults. RPSM ( talk) 10:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems that the article is only semi-protected, which means you ought to be able to make edits to this article. Nautical Mongoose ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RPSM, several other editors are very well-learned in Jewish matters. Some of your ideas have merit; others would be contested. But that is not what matters. What matters is that editors do not put their own views or interpretations into articles. Please consult WP:NOR carefully. If you want to propose specific changes that comply with our core policies, WP:NPOV whicn concisely states that we add only notable points of view, and we identify what we add as a point of view and not as "the truth", and our WP:V policy, which requires notable views to come from reliable and verifiable sources, and if your proposed changes do not violate WP:NOR I can add the changes on your behalf. Please familiarize yourself with those policies and promose a few specific edits and I will help you. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'll say to start with is that in acordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, changes to articles, particularly major changes, can't be based on editors' own opinions but need to be verified by reliable sources. An overview of Judaism can be done from different perspectives. One difficulty is that the article needs to provide an overview in a way that is neutral, describing the origins and development of Judaism in a way that does not assume that various Jewish beliefs are either true or false, or that a particular variant is correct. We continually get revision proposals from academic editors who ask us to say in the introduction that Abraham and Moses are simply legends and "nobody" believes they ever existed. It's not an easy matter. Best,-- Shirahadasha ( talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha is right and I just want to underscore one of his points: this article need not and perhaps should not provide one point of view; as long as they are notable we ought to provide multiple points of view, and clearly identify/situate/contextualize each point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo Shirahadasha's words. Your viewpoint is certainly one that is held by Orthodox Judaism, but NPOV and NOR would require that all major viewpoints are covered, and that they are also properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if it is the "orthodox" vs reconstructionism, liberal, etc. The Jewish Encyclopedia and Kaufman Kohler in 1906 were dealing with this too, and K (his signature in the JE) has dealt with this very well. Firstly, by making a list of whatever he thought was the basis of Judaism and incontrovertible, and then tacking on the the end of it "But today, there are Jews who feel ... modern ... etc. Surely, not a big problem. What I am bitching about is traditional Christian views that could well be called antisemitic or Christnocentric that dominate the lead in the article. Pre-1820 there was no Reform Judaism. And then it was easier (perhaps) to write an article about Judaism. K says something like it is very difficult to put one's finger on exactly what Judaism "is". Then there is the fact - well known to Jews, but perhaps not to non-Jews, that someone who is "orthodox" and not frum (observant) is in some ways in the same position as a Reform Jew (except he knows more {maybe} or maybe not. I do not want to simplify, or to denigrate Reform Judaism: but say, the fact that Yeminites and Moroccan Jews find it difficult to understand what is going on in a Reform shul, and the background to that. I think that reading K's articles on Judaism and Christianity and Paul of Tarsus in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, one can find enough there to describe "Judaism" as a whole before adding about Reform variations of Judaism (that seem to have done an about turn) abandoning Sunday services, putting much more Hebrew in than they had before, etc. I don't see a problem. I agree entirely just try to give a complete picture. (Not forgetting that one and the same family had have different members in various types of Judaism. (I cannot say "denominations".) I am originally from the UK, and a US centred Judaism view puts Liberal, Reconstructionism etc up front more. And this, too is something that is a "fact" UK reform Jews resent the fact that the Chief Rabbi is regarded as representing all Jews, whereas, he is, in fact Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue - originally, historically exclusively for German Jews. (called "Tedescos" by Sephardim in Zangwill's books) There is a split now depending on the question of "who is a jew?" patrilineal descent etc. And Cohanim and Levi'im do not seem to exist in Reform (I read). Are we discussing that Reform has abrogated the Torah, and idea of mitzvoth? (halakha) or not? end of musings and thoughts. Another point is that an article on Judaism is read diffently by Jews than by non-Jews who are not familiar with basic concepts. Sorry to be brainstorming here mostly. I would look for a narrative that the reader can follow in the article that is more or less incontrovertible (among Jews) and I would exclude a Christian view of Judaism in an article on Judaism. RPSM ( talk) 10:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TLDR -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it, and you can brainstorm al you want, but the fact rmains that Wikipedia does not care about truth, it cares about verifiabilioty; we do not putin our own views, but notable views found in reliable sources. Kohler is one notable view but far from the only one and it doesn't matter whether you or all of us love him; we assign to his views weight that reflects their notability .. and add other views, by religious leaders of various Juewish movements as well as by historians and sociologists of religion (even if they are hnot Jewish!) Slrubenstein | Talk 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RPSM, you wrote: "Another point is that an article on Judaism is read diffently by Jews than by non-Jews who are not familiar with basic concepts". EXACTLY. One of the biggest problems I've seen on religious web pages is the fact that terms are used in different ways "internally" than they are "externally." It gets especially sticky when one religion is making a comment about another. While I agree with Sl that Wikipedia is not about "truth", I've noted that Sl just doesn't grasp that NPOV requires that we recognize the fact that we are speaking to a generic audience and not word things so that "falsehood" is created. I'm not concerned with ultimate reality here. I'm concerned with communication. Sl says that things must be verifiable. Absolutely. They must be notable. Absolutely. They must represent a neutral point of view. Absolutely. Where we differ is this: I insist that things must be written IN ENGLISH. That is, the article must be worded in such a way that it communicates the same information to Jews and Muslims and Atheists and Buddhists and Christians. That's the trick. We do NOT create truth here. We do NOT create research here. But, please, let's NOT create sloppy syntax that means one thing to insiders and something entirely different to outsiders. And for that, brainstorming is in order -- not to create content, but rather to COMMUNICATE it. Also, we have to recognize that we are in a generic encyclopedia with words defined and used in multiple contexts. Wikipedia has a huge consistency problem with terms that will take a long time to brainstorm away. Finally, someone born and raised within a single paradigm may not be able to see the communication problem no matter how hard you try; so don't get discouraged, but be forewarned. Okay, off my pedestal now. Please, continue the brainstorming and don't let people shoot you down. It's hugely needed and you are absolutely on the right track.

But it's only a track. While you are brainstorming, make sure that what you have is notable, mainstream, verifiable, and NPOV. But yet, brainstorm to make it into an English structure that all readers from different backgrounds will get the same information. Tim ( talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that language should be clear, and that terms that have a special meaning should be explained for a general audience. I also note that RPSM is using language in a very precise way. I also think that is a very good idea, 100%. I just add this observation: the more precise the language, the more likely it reflects a specific point of view. As long as that POV is notable and found in verifiable sources, and properly identified, and other notable POVs are also represented, I have no objection at all! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The section entitled Family Purity was changed to Sexual Regulations with the edit comment "section headings shouldn't use euphemisms". I undid the edit, because it is not simply a euphemism. Rather, it is a literal translation of the section in Jewish law called "Taharas Hamishpacha." (Taharas = Purity; HaMishpacha = "Of the family"). Shirulashem ( talk) 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but isn't this just taking a Hebrew euphemism and translating it into English? Ashmoo ( talk) 11:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Translating an existing euphemism isn't the same as creating one. The term is in regular use. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 12:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed an editor created a euphemism. I'm just questioning the practice of using euphemisms as section titles in an encyclopedia. Ashmoo ( talk) 09:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically a section title should be whatever is the easiest to identify. But there is another reason to call it Family Purity: the current practice isn't Niddah, but a conflation of Niddah and Zava. On a technical level, the euphemism better identifies the current practice. SkyWriter (Tim) ( talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article titled Judaism has a link to non-exclusive ethnic group early in the article. The idea seems to be that Jews make up one example of such a group. If so, they would probably be the example that is by far the most well-known among English-speaking people generally, and I wonder if the non-exclusive ethnic group article came into existence primarily for that reason. Someone has nominated the article titled non-exclusive ethnic group for deletion. Just after the nomination for deletion, most of the article's content, including the definition of the concept, got deleted from the article, and then several people opined that it should be deleted. I've restored the deleted content. I have no expertise in this area, but that sequence of events makes me suspicious (I tend to view AfD nominations with a presumption of suspicion anyway).

So go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Non-exclusive_ethnic_group#Non-exclusive_ethnic_group and write either Keep, Delete, Comment, etc. But don't just do that: state your reasons for your view; it's not supposed to be just vote-counting. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, you should be more up-front if you want to make accusations. I proposed the article for deletion and I explained why on the AfD page, and notified all who had contributed to the article. You suspect my motives or how I went about this? Are you accusing me of pushing some agenda on this page? What exactly are you saying? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the link to the article nominated for deletion is not obvious; it can be seen only when editing the page. And since you wouldn't do the research to support your vague "suspicions" I did. Apparently, the link was added today. [2] It was not in the article prior to today. So please, Michael, no unfounded suspicions that my nominating that article had anything to do with this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) I haven't accused you of anything. (2) The link was not added today; it's been there for years. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The link was added today, I have provided the edit difference. It was not in the article yesterday. It was not in the article in January 2008. It was not in the article in April 2007. It was not in the article in May of 2006. I do not have time to keep digging around for whenever the link was in this article. I believe you that it once was, but I am telling you it has not been for at least two and a half years. You say you have not accused me of anything. Please then take a minute to explain exactly what your suspicions are? you mention suspicions in your initial post and I assumed they were suspicions in relation to the nomination for deletion, and I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, so what are your suspicions that somehow do not have anything to do with me? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it was the article titled Jew in which I found the link in June 2004. That is how the article came to my attention. My suspicion in AfD nominations is often that the motive for deletion is that the article is badly written. That's not supposed to be grounds for deletion, but rather grounds for re-writing. One form this sometimes takes, which could apply in this case, is lack of cited sources. I think I first learned of this concept from a book by Robert Heinlein published in the 1950s. Heinlein cannot be considered authoritative on this issue. But that means this concept existed long before the Wikipedia article, so it's less than obvious that it's "original research" as some are claiming. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your suspicions, as well as pointing to the article on "Jew." For what it is worth I have never read a historical or sociological study of jews that used the term "non-exclusive ethnic group," nor have I heard the term used by other social scientists studying ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can move this discussion on because this page is not a forum. As almost all the votes are to delete (other than 1), I doubt the article will be there much longer. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is my lack of mental capacity, but the section that claims a distinction between Jews and Judaism exists does not seem to actually say, clearly, what that distinction is. I feel it is more of an author's attempt at improving his popularity. Since most of it is talking about one philosopher's ideals and then summarizing Judaism as best it can. Would it be possible for someone to make a clear and to the point translation of just what this distinction is? Possible in a sentence or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenji000 ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are basically two definitions of Jews. One is a follower of Judaism and the other is people who can trace their heritage to the ancient Hebrew people of Israel (in other words people who are any fraction of any of the Jewish ethnic groups) ---Skyler (:^| 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the mainstream definition of Jew (which is the topic of another article, not this one) is the child of a Jewish mother (who must be the child of a Jewish mother and so on all the way back ... this standard was established during the period of the Tanaim). Anyone who wants to can practice (I do not know what "follow" means) Judaism, but unless they convert - and are given the Hebrew name "son of Abraham" indicating their having been adopted into the family - they are not Jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A Sniper called my link for spam. Netzarim are Orthodox Jews in Ra'anana in Israel. I can't see how that is spam to give a link to their website. The leader Paqid Yirmeyahu ha-Tzadiq is in good standing in the Orthodox Synagouge Moreshot Avot in Ra'anana in Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersbr ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Messianic spam, Anders, and furthermore it is an organization that you yourself are a part of and that you are advertising for - I saw your page at the site. It has no place in an article on Judaism and the link will be removed as vandalism. Thanks. A Sniper ( talk) 09:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)