 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I have a real problem with this name. It should be North America. Thanks. A Sniper
- Fixed - Reform Judaism (USA) now redirects to Reform Judaism (North America). Hope no one eats me alive for this.
Egfrank 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Relax, these are everyday things on Wikipedia, IZAK 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a problem with this name too -- it should be the U.S., as the article is about Reform Judaism in that country and not that of either of the other North American countries, Canada or Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.228.220 ( talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I blanked the warning after completing the new FUR template for the photo. A Sniper 15:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Explanation and FUR listing enhanced per warning.
A Sniper (
talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think its use in the page here is fair-use. The page is about the Union and other Reform things, and only mentions this magazine in essentially a list of items. The image is nothing more than a thumb for a paragraph about all sorts of Union programs. The place the cover-scan is fair-use is in the article about the magazine, given that we have such a page. You and I edit-conflicted a bit here...I removed the image but linked the magazine's page directly. DMacks ( talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. There is absolutely nothing wrong with, from either a Wikipedia or a US copyright law standpoint, including the photo (a greatly reduced magazine cover shot) in an article about the publisher/owner of that very magazine. The FUR is intact, makes its case, and was filed accordingly. Both are not-for-profit, tax exempt organizations located at the same address. Wikipedia's FUR wasn't designed to be used in draconian fashion for this type of purge. However, I won't press the issue for now - you can take some time, look at other examples where a religious group's organ is involved, and perhaps revert yourself. Remember that this article is meant to be an encyclopedic piece about everything involving this religious denomination, and the photo of the denomination's own publication enhances the credibility. Best,
A Sniper (
talk) 07:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I've thought more, and came to my same conclusion. Consider Fair-Use Policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", the associated image guideline, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". We need to be clearly discussing the magazine itself (per "critical commentary"). Or this mag needs to be the primary identifier for the topic of Reform Judaism or for the Union, which it's not. We're actually two steps removed here...an article about a topic (RJ-NA) which mentions a group (URJ) that has a separate page, and that group publishes a mag that also has a separate page. I can understand Reform Judaism and the Union and understand that these groups produce and lead many things without seeing the magazine cover. The magazine cover is not the primary means of recognizing RJ or the Union, merely of recognizing this publication, which is one part of one part of the topic, hardly iconic. The music and TV world fought this battle a while ago and WM declared quite strongly (with much yelling among editors, but now we're stuck with it) that we can't use album-covers in discography lists and similar pages, but can on an album's own page.
DMacks (
talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough - it was late at night and I actually thought I was at the UNION article :( I would state that, if there was additional, significant material within the Union article about the mag, that would be one thing, but I agree with you that this is a two-step separation, and it doesn't qualify. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I've thought more, and came to my same conclusion. Consider Fair-Use Policy, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", the associated image guideline, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". We need to be clearly discussing the magazine itself (per "critical commentary"). Or this mag needs to be the primary identifier for the topic of Reform Judaism or for the Union, which it's not. We're actually two steps removed here...an article about a topic (RJ-NA) which mentions a group (URJ) that has a separate page, and that group publishes a mag that also has a separate page. I can understand Reform Judaism and the Union and understand that these groups produce and lead many things without seeing the magazine cover. The magazine cover is not the primary means of recognizing RJ or the Union, merely of recognizing this publication, which is one part of one part of the topic, hardly iconic. The music and TV world fought this battle a while ago and WM declared quite strongly (with much yelling among editors, but now we're stuck with it) that we can't use album-covers in discography lists and similar pages, but can on an album's own page.
DMacks (
talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. There is absolutely nothing wrong with, from either a Wikipedia or a US copyright law standpoint, including the photo (a greatly reduced magazine cover shot) in an article about the publisher/owner of that very magazine. The FUR is intact, makes its case, and was filed accordingly. Both are not-for-profit, tax exempt organizations located at the same address. Wikipedia's FUR wasn't designed to be used in draconian fashion for this type of purge. However, I won't press the issue for now - you can take some time, look at other examples where a religious group's organ is involved, and perhaps revert yourself. Remember that this article is meant to be an encyclopedic piece about everything involving this religious denomination, and the photo of the denomination's own publication enhances the credibility. Best,
A Sniper (
talk) 07:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states, "a minority of Reform rabbis and laity have come to affirm various beliefs including theism and deism." How is theism different from monotheism in the context of Judaism? Dynzmoar ( talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this sounds unfounded and silly - please get rid of it if there is no reference. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Although the ACJ is an interesting footnote to the history of the Reform movement in North America (despite it being US-centered), without proper references it would appear POV to include information on it within the body of the article. Using weasel words (small but vocal) isn't helpful, either. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd that the only reference to this is an external link pointing to a position statement quoted on a newsgroup. In Reform Judaism women have taken more active roles, including as rabbis, and there have been numerous other changes related to how they participate in worship. Surely such developments deserve discussion in the main part of the article.-- Parkwells ( talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
192.12.88.7 ( talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
One, why is theology before history in this article? In other types of Judaism history comes before anything else. Just wondering... Also, in terms of numbers, how can there be about 5 million Jews in USA, with at least 1.5 million being Reform and it being the largest denomination? I do think it is the largest, and fastest growing, but how do we account for the others? Jim Steele ( talk) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- The 1.5 million is from them and dated to 2000. Nobody knows the real numbers today but according to some reform rabbis themselves the real figure is below 850,000 and shrinking (not growing). Let's not forget also that reforms count Jews differently and according to them the number of Jews in the USA is around 6.5 millions. So they may be the largest denomination (and this comes from a study 10 years ago so we don't know for today), but they are a small minority of US Jews. 79.178.16.253 ( talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some research identified the 5 million constitutes Reform, Recontructivist, Conservative and Orthodox. In reality there are more than 1.5 million Reform Jews in the USA. There are a plethora of resources out there that substantiate the fact it is the the largest and fastest growing denomination. And with a 40% intermarriage rate do you think since 2000 the trend has reversed itself? "They are a small minority of US Jews" What planet are you living on?
Jim Steele ( talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Give me your plethora of resources, please. The official data from the Reform movement itself speaks of 1.5 million Reform Jews worldwide in 2000. I agree that most of them are Americans, but that put the number below 1.5 millions. And the 2000 survey of the UJC gives 750,000 affiliated Reform Jews in the US. Of course I don't enter the issue of who is a Jew because some of the people that Reform Judaism counts as Jews are not Jews according to the other denominations. Since 2000, with a 40 or 50% intermarriage rate, I guess it proves that the numbers are lower than today, not the contrary. Intermarriage leads usually to complete assimilation, not more affiliated Jews. I also have a few testimonies from Reform rabbis saying just that (they give 850,000 Reform Jews or lower) and that is the reason there is no new demographic data since 2000. So yes, out of some 5.5-6 millions Jews in the US, they are a small or not very big minority. No idea where the "fastest growing denomination" comes from when it is obvious and well known this is the Orthodox denomination, with its very high birthrate, that enjoys this status. 80.250.158.213 ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Go find the resources yourself; if you are such an expert on data "from them" as you say it should be easy. Your comments suggest a lot of paranoia. The data in this article and in others abour Reform Judaism are not part of some conspiracy to thwart the Frummies by cooking the books. I'm not giving you any resources because I am not playing the game of me presenting them and then you claiming they aren't valid or biased or seedy. By the way, the 50% intermarriage rate is among ALL groups of Jews, not just Reform. Moreover, where is your research that assimilation leads to a loss of Jews? Do you live in a shtetl? The numbers of Jews, young Jews, in Reform congregations are higher then any other branch. Most Orthodox and Conservative congregations are geriatric synagogues. Do you even live in America? Most Jews here are secular. The high birth rate of Orthodox Jews still doesn't offset the high numbers of Reform Jews. Your "few testimonies of Reform Rabbis" aren't sufficient to convince me of anything, and if a couple of conversations with a Rabbi were good enough evidence/proof for you of something as complicated as the population of Jews then I think it best you do some more research and I stop conversing with you.
Jim Steele ( talk) 14:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are obviously the paranoiac. I am merely discussing and confronting data. You are the only one to interpret things in a very ideological and strange way. You have no source and no facts. So it is a little bit difficult to have a discussion with you. The fact that assimilation leads to a loss of Jews is a tautology. Assimilation is by definition the loss of Jews. The fact that intermarriage leads to assimilation is a well known fact and self-evident. Why do you think is the number of Jews dwindling in the US ? The fact that most US Jews are secular is exactly what I was saying, I never said the contrary. I never said either that Orthodox Jews are offsetting Reform Jews. Just that they are growing more rapidly, a fact confirmed, well, by all research.
- I guess this guy also does not know what he is talking about: [1] : "The demographic situation of American Reform Judaism today is hard to assess, in part because the movement stopped publishing statistical information about itself a decade ago. Professor Steven M. Cohen, a leading sociologist of American Judaism and a professor at the Reform movement’s flagship Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, talks about 850,000 Reform Jews. Similarly, Reform Judaism magazine reports a circulation of approximately 300,000, which would yield a total affiliated Reform population at well under one million adherents" 80.250.158.213 ( talk) 11:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
50% of all Jews do NOT intermarry. That is ONLY true in Reform Judaism. It is about 20% in Conservative Judaism, and farless than 10% in all forms of Orthodoxy. For secular and Reform jews the numbers are over 50%. You may not like that, but that is what all the studies show. RK ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I added a link to the more general "Confirmation" article, for more details on Reform Judaism and the development of confirmation. I added some material from the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia.
User:WalkerThrough has been adding lines to the Bible article asserting that it is the revealed word of God (fact). The section on the Hebrew Bible stated that some Jews believe that God revealed all the commandments at Sinai, and other Jews think they were revealed during the wanderings in the desert (no sources). I find this a little off, but certain, not all Jews, not all rabbis, hold to just these two views. I think it excludes the views of most reform Rabbis and I added that some scholars believe that the laws were composed at later times in Jewish history. WalkerThrough deleted this as Original Research here. I restored it with a couple of citations, but now Walker Through is calling me an unbeliever and that Jesus is the truth. I hope that better informed watchers of this page might keep an eye on this as I do not wish to enter a revert war. I would also ask watchers of this page to look at the last section on the talk page, and, if you have something constructive to add, consider it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)