Talk:Criticism of Conservative Judaism

Request for sources in Criticism from Orthodox Judaism section

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I believe the lead paragraph of the Criticism from Orthodox Judaism section reasonably summarizes the key specific arguments made in individual criticisms which follow, all of which are sourced. Therefore, separate sources are not necessary and accordingly I have removed the {{fact}} template from this paragraph. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article does not make much sense. Surely this article must include the many, vigourous rebuttals made against these charges. And why is Shafran represented as mainstream Orthodox? There are many Orthodox Jews who believe that he goes too far, too often.

Do we have a similar article Criticism of Orthodox Judaism? There is over 200 years of Reform and Conservative criticism of Orthodoxy. We cannot have a situation where one side is reported alone. Mark3 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a Criticism section in Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism, reflecting criticism from positions to the right, but no criticism of Haredi Judaism (or Reform Judaism, for that matter). The issue had been brought up earlier and the community concensus was that editors are welcome to add criticism sections where missing or inadequate but that balance should not be created by removing valid existing content. The difficulty with putting rebuttals in the criticism sections is both that it threatens to turn the exposition into a debate -- violating WP:MOS -- and also because the criticism section is itself a balancing of the content of the original article. To avoid a debate style, perhaps the key content underlying rebuttals can be put in the origianl article. If this cannot be done, perhaps criticism should not be split into separate articles so all sides can be present in one article and WP:NPOV can be maintained. Otherwise, we would be in a situation where the "anti" articles get balanced by rebuttals, but the "pro" articles do not, resuilting in a net pro tilt and a WP:NPOV violation. Finally, Shafran was included because his criticism of Conservative Judaism is particularly notable, and also because it represents an approach (unlike some of Shafran's other statements) shared by a broad spectrum of Orthodox Jews. Avi Weiss, for example, actually says quite similar things, and he could be added as well. --Shirahadasha 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both statements are fair but whatever happens, I believe we should maintain the criticism as a separate article in this instance. I feel confident that this is the most effective way to get all the details in. Besides, the main Conservative Judaism article has become rather unwieldy and many have worked hard to split and polish up the larger sections. Nothing wrong with putting in a little more effort here and there to make it work, right? --yonkeltron 06:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lede

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems that the lede is a POV example of criticism of the Conservative movement:

Conservative Judaism is a Jewish denomination born in reaction to both Reform and Orthodox Judaism. Though it professes its fidelity to the Jewish traditions' roots, it considers Jewish Law (Halakha) to be a dynamic process, needing to be interpreted at each generation to meet the needs of Jewish practicionners during their own time, leading to a quite liberal practice.

If the lede wants to summarize the criticism in the article that's okay, but the sentence should say something like "Critics of the Conservative movement allege that ..." — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to reword the introduction to make its tone more WP:NPOV. Be WP:BOLD. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I think that this article should be (a) shortened considerably by summarizing the long quotations and then (b) merged into the Criticism section of Conservative Judaism.

It seems to me that this article is not much more than "Let's all blast Conservative Judaism". As an encyclopedia article, I don't think it stands on its own. I also think it's got serious WP:POV problems.

I'll work on a short summary that I think can be copied and merged into Conservative Judaism#Criticism and post it here later. In the meantime, I would appreciate other editors' thoughts. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment This article was once a section of Conservative Judaism and was split from that article after a discussion not that long ago decided to do so. While concensus is free to change, it may be worth not changing it too frequently. It's worth noting that Modern Orthodox Judaism#Criticism remains a section of Modern Orthodox Judaism, while Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam have their own articles, so it's been done both ways in religion articles and I don't think either approach represents a violation of core policies. --Shirahadasha 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment I think there may be too much information for a section of the main article, but certainly it is way too long, especially in terms of extremely long blocks of quotation, leaving the impression of a soapboxing "Let's all blast Conservative Judaism". BobFromBrockley 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment Regardless of merger, somebody needs to (boldly) cut out the long quotes and give each an encyclopedic summary. That's our job here! Then we can nitpick, I mean edit, the summaries. Yes, the critique section may now be one-sided, but if it's notable then our role is to add the other POV side, in an NPOV way, of course. HG | Talk 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok, I tried this on Safran. Somebody can do Weiss, he's making maybe 2 points. HG | Talk 23:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment I think it's more reasonable to include this within the Conservative Judaism article; I don't see why there should be an article delineating the support and challenges of claims made in another article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Comment As one of the people who advocated the original spinoff of the former section to it's current article form, I feel that it should remain as an article for reasons of size, content and potential for growth. We chose to split out the content in accordance with Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Article Size. If it is going to be reintegrated, then the reasons should be consistent with this as well. Yes this article could do with some heavy editing...but at the same time, I feel it should stay a separate article. --yonkeltron 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oppose It should be merged with Criticism of Judaism instead thestick 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of Conservative Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic