Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

What's going on here?

Noleander: What's the purpose of this article? It seems that you are taking every aspect of Orthodox Judaism and attacking it. You have reams of "scholarly" references to back up the attacks, and then put in a one-liner for "balance", quoting either Reform Jews (who can't be the best spokesmen for Judaism since they threw off most of the halakhot [laws]), or Christian "proponents" who say it's all a misunderstanding. The whole article reads like a charge sheet with no one standing at the witness stand, and smacks of good old-fashioned antisemitism. I think you would be better off calling a spade a spade and re-titling this article Reform criticism of Judaism to make it clear who is really doing the attacking. Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is to document notable criticisms of Judaism: criticisms of its doctrines, precepts, practices, policies, beliefs, texts, and (when acting in a religious capacity) leaders. It may be true that many of the criticisms are specific to traditional/Rabbinic/Orthodox Judaism: if so, that fact should be noted in the appropriate section in the article. The article Criticism of Conservative Judaism is relevant, and that leads to the notion that this article should be a WP:Summary Style article. Also, you may want to refer to Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Criticism of Catholicism, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Islam, and Criticism of Religion for similar articles that may be instructive. Regarding balancing material: I concur that the balancing material is not sufficient. I plan on improving that (and the lead paragraph also) in the near future, but any help would be appreciated, of course. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

.. oh, regarding your final suggestion to "re-titling this article Reform criticism of Judaism" - please see the discussion above in this Talk page at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#proposal to add new section on "some religious laws are unreasonable". In that section I proposed the addition of content to this encyclopedia specifically on that topic. The intention of that new content is to document the criticisms of the traditiona/Orthodox/Rabbinical Judaism, as made by leaders of the Reform movement in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That content could go in this article, or in a new article, or in Orthodox Judaism, or in Reform movement in Judaism. If you have any suggestions on that proposal, please comment above in that section. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just a huge coatrack with no particular relationship between the sections; the article seems to make no distinction between significant criticism and insignificant. Further, it's classic original research in the form of unsourced argumentation. XXX; however YYY. All of the "however" clauses should be removed unless there is a source providing such comparisons; WP:SYNTH is pretty clear about this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the overall organization of the article needs improvement. I attempted to initiate a discussion about that earlier, but two editors objected to initiating a discussion of the over-all outline, so no progress was made on that front. Regarding "no relationship" between the sections, you'll notice that all the other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles have a similar drawback, although some do have some minimal organization (e.g. ancient criticism vs recent criticisms; or "criticisms from source A" vs "criticisms from source B"). This article is a hybrid now: it has a section Criticisms directed at Conservative Judaism, which suggests breaking the article along "which branch of J is being criticized"; but it also has Criticism from Islam section, which implies organizing the article along the source of the criticism. A third approach is organizing based on the nature of the criticism. The organization is an important question, but I have not yet found another editor willing to engage in dialog (except for user AFriedman). A few weeks ago I posted in this Talk page three possible outlines we could use (it has been automatically archived) but that went nowhere. Also, the WP:Summary Style guideline may be appropriate, since many of the criticisms are (or should be) covered in more detail in other articles (e.g. circumcision, agunah, niddah, etc). --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon, you have succinctly outlined the problem with doing google searches for any negative claim one can dig up on Jews, and then stuffing them into a couple of articles, this one and Antisemitic canard. WP:COATRACK is exactly what is going on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of some paragraphs

I have removed some paragraphs that were guilty of WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH, the latter either being criticisms of texts, not Judaism as a religion and the former referring to a three paragraph subsection on the 19487 war when the the criticism vis-a-vis violence as a whole is already discussed above. We need to be working on turning this article back into a respectable list of notable criticisms and not a coat-rack or laundry list of anything ever written that criticized Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if I create an RfC to get comment on the "violence" content you deleted? --Noleander (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

POV tag added for deletion of "Violence and conflict" subsection

I've added a POV tag to this article (this POV tag is different from the POV tag that was already there which is a different/opposite issue). The POV issue that I am raising is that notable content was removed from this article, namely, content describing how critics claim that Judaism has been used to justify or motivate violence in modern times. The content that was removed is can be seen here, with footnotes. (Note: the article already has a small section on ancient violence but that only addresses ancient violence, whereas the deleted content addresses modern violence). Reasons the content was deleted may include: (1) the content is not notable; (2) the content give undue weight to the criticisms; (3) not neutral, and (4) the content is a synthesis. Addressing those concerns individually:

• Notable - The claim that "Judaism has been used to justify war and violence" is immensely notable, and is documented in many, many secondary sources such as The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst; and Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam James Heft (Ed.).

• Undue - The deleted content is only slightly larger than the existing section Criticism of Judaism#Kosher slaughter. Secondary sources on "criticism of religion" indicate that "religion causes war and violence" is one of the top two or three criticisms of religion.

• Neutral - The deleted content is about 90% critical information, with about 10% balancing information. Additional balancing information is needed, but while that research is underway is no reason to delete all the content: rather than delete, we should improve.

• Synthesis - The Criticism of Judaism article is, by definition, a compilation of various notable criticisms. There is no requirement that a single independent source also include the exact same compilation. Other similar articles such as Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Islam contain similar compilations. The controversial article Israel and the apartheid analogy is a compilation of uses of an analogy, yet no independent source contains such a compilation. In these kinds of articles, there is no requirement that an independent source contain a similar compilation. Even if there were such a requirement, there are several secondary sources that do contain compilations of relgion-related violence in the Middle East, including:

• The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
• Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky
• Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by Mark Juergensmeyer
• Religious radicalism in the Greater Middle East by Bruce Maddy-Weitzman

The contention that "religion leads to violence" is an extremely important topic in human discourse (whether we agree with that assertion or not), and that detailed coverage of it in this encyclopedia is warranted. Indeed, it is already documented in this encyclopedia (with respect to other religions) in several articles:

• Criticism of Islam#Violence towards critics of Islam
• Criticism of Christianity#Christianity and violence
• Mormonism and violence
• Militant Hinduism
• Criticism of Catholicism#Crusades
• Sikh extremism
• Criticism of religion#Holy war and religious terrorism

The POV tag can be removed when the content (here), including appropriate balancing information, is restored. --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this Talk page has so few editors participating, I added an entry to NPOV notice board to get more input from disinterested editors. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Already tagged POV in {{Article issues}} list, extra tag was 100% redundant, so removed. -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Discussion of Reform vs. Orthodox Judaism is out of the scope of this article, as it is an internal debate as to how to interpret and practice the same religion, and not a criticism of the religion itself. Also, listing individual critics is inappropriate, I believe, as it is rather open to interpretation, some of the critics listed are not notable as critics of Judaism (similar to Gandhi being notable, but not as a chemist), and others were anti-semites, and we should refrain from promoting antisemitism, and all the more so dressing it up and masquerading it as valid criticism. -- Avi (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Avi: What WP policy says that people listed in the "see also" list must be primarily notable in their relationship to the article's subject? In fact, isnt the "see also" list supposed to be for people/articles that did not make it into the article's content/body, hence are not very directly related to the article? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Violence - Modern

Again, any individual or fringe group can find justifications for their ideology in the Bible. But can their actions be viewed as a criticism of Judaism itself? Why is all the material in this section associated with the political and nationalistic aspirations of people in relation to the modern State of Israel. Are there any other such modern occurrences of violence not associated with Israel? Where else in modern times had Judaism "endorsed" violence? Jews who condemned the killings by Amir and Goldstein were not criticizing Judaism, but their own personal actions. It is like saying the killing by Herschel Grynszpan was caused by his Judaism, rather then any other ulterior motive. Should the violence by the defenders of the Warsaw ghetto also be viewed as a criticism of Judaism? Chesdovi (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The section seems to be merely lumping together people who are Jewish and intimating that the religion caused the violence, which is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. This should be an article containing valid criticisms of the religion, not of people who happen to be its adherents who act for other motivations (Zionism, revenge, etc.). -- Avi (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi & Avi: please see discussion above (in the collapsed section) for response to your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kosher section: please discuss changes first

Chesdovi: Please discuss changes to the article prior to making them. I restored the Kosher slaughter section to its older form. I concur that the section could be a bit shorter, in keeping with the WP:Summary Style nature of this article. But if you want to make that section shorter, please (1) ensure that the detailed "main" article contains the same info; (2) summarize the "main" article's criticisms properly; and (3) include some representative citations/sources here in this article ( Your recent change deleted the citation/source of the criticism). Refer to WP:Summary Style for details. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Avi: could you please restore the cite/source you deleted? If you want to delete some extraneous verbiage, that is okay, but the cite needs to be kept. Thanks.--Noleander (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, sorry about that. -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Criticism of…" is a negative conceptualization. This article should be deleted. There is no coherent scope for subject matter here. Virtually anything relating to Judaism carries with it an element of "Criticism" unless it is unalloyed praise and endorsement, and I have never encountered anything like that. This article should be deleted because it is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says that, "…merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, there is an "Article for Deletion" process WP:AFD that you can use. Before you do that, you may want to spend a moment reviewing the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles (e.g. Criticism of Islam, etc)... their Talk pages contains records of numerous AfD requests (as does this article, by the way). Every time, the consensus is "keep". Instead, I suggest that we work to improve the quality if this article by adding balancing information, eliminating defects identified by the tags at the top of the article, etc. But please discuss on the Talk page first before making any significant changes. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — Please try to address the point I'm raising. This article is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because of the haphazard way that its scope comes into focus. I don't believe its scope comes into focus at all. At the end of the day (or the year, or the decade) this will always be a virtually random assembly of almost unrelated facts. The only common denominator that they will ever have is their relationship to Judaism. In the final analysis, anything that relates to Judaism, however tenuously, is fair game for inclusion in an article such as this. Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think if you read the AfD discussions in this Talk page archive (and the Talk page archives of other "Criticism of someReligion" articles) you will see your point is addressed in some detail there. --Noleander (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I've opened up a section at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Criticism of Judaism regarding the unsourced argumentation in this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags need specific supporting description Talk page

Regarding the tags at the top of article: each of those tags require a description here in the Talk page that specifically identifies the problem, and identifies a path towards resolution. See, for example the POV tag explanation above. Tags that are just added without specific supporting information in the Talk page are subject to removal. --Noleander (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• POV/Neutrality - As discussed above and on NPOV board - Needs to be balanced in accord with mainstream data per wikipedia policy.
• Reorg - As discussed in collapsed section with AFreidman - Needs further discussion.
• OR - Includes lack of sourcing for certain statements is unverified claims, part of that tag - Needs sources or removal per wikipedia policy.
• Factual accuracy - Discussed in collapsed sections (Sabbath vis-a-vis Non Jews, Jesus statements, etc.) - Inaccuracies need to be removed per wikipedia policy.
• SYNTH - Some of the sections, or proposed sections, attempt creating linkages not made in underlying texts - SYNTH needs to be removed per wikipedia policy.
• Criticism/Controversy - Entire article is such, but this may be already included in the existing NPOV tag - this tag will be removed.
• Expert - Well, there are a number of us experts already pointing out flaws in the article and proposed sections, but more is better. - Needs more notices at the Judaism wikiproject.
• Unbalanced - Pointed out above and elsewhere, especially vis-a-vis Orthodoxy - needs balance through addition or subtraction.
• Biased - Part of the NPOV issue - needs to be balanced in accord with mainstream data per wikipedia policy.
• Inappropriate - this relates to trying to pass of antisemitic canards as valid criticisms - these need removal per wikipedia policy.

-- Avi (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: could you be a bit more specific? In your explanations above, you are more or less repeating the WP policies. But for _this_ article, what are the _specific_ issues? For example, for "Baised" you say "needs to be balanced in accord with mainstream data per wikipedia policy.". But what specific aspect of the article is biased? Can you give an example of balancing material that could be added to eliminate the bias? Or "Accuracy": what specifically are the facts in the article that are not correct? And so on with the other issues. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: Could you explain the "Organization" tag? Which of the several candidate outlines provided above (in the Talk page) do you think is best? Why is it better than the other candidate outlines? Regarding "Unbalanced" tag: which specific section do you think is unbalanced? For that section: can you give an example of balancing material that should be added? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop: do you have specific corrective information for the the various tags in the article? All tags must have specific issues outlined on the Talk page. I suppose we could leave "Balanced" and "Not neutral" tags in place for now, but how about the other tags? --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Land ownership conflicts in Middle East

This section is not a criticism of "Judaism's religious texts, religious laws, religious practices, and the consequences of those laws and practices", rather of "Zionism" and its use of the texts to provide various "justifcations". A criticism of Jews maybe, not Judaism. If this page is to include criticism of "Jews" it should be made clear in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion above on this Talk page (in collapsed section "Proposal for new section: "Critics claim that Judaism's precepts have led to unfair land-ownership practices and expulsion of peoples in the Middle East") that addresses your concern. --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If people are using the Bible to condone their violence, they, and the people who attribute it to their religion, are the ones who need criticising. Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section on "Racism and slavery"

I propose to add a new section to this article on "Racism and slavery". Guideline WP:Summary Style may apply since the content is partially covered in articles:

• Judaism and slavery
• Curse of Ham#Early Jewish interpretations
• The Bible and slavery

The criticisms are that the Judaism's texts and precepts (Hebrew bible and rabbinic authorities) endorsed slavery and racism, and served as a primary justification for the slave trade and anti-black racism. Secondary sources include:

• The curse of Ham: race and slavery in early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by David M. Goldenberg
• The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism by Nur Masalha
• Jews and blacks in the early modern world by Jonathan Schorsch
• The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and the Justifications by David M. Whitford

Balancing material includes (1) slavery endorsed by the Hebrew bible is no worse (and probably better) than other forms of slavery from that era; (2) most modern scholars conclude that the curse of ham was not related to skin color; and (3) other balancing material from the Goldenberg source. --Noleander (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Here is some draft text for the section. Please comment with any suggestions (you may want to read the "see also" articles first, they have additional detail):

---

See also: Judaism and slavery, Curse of Ham § Early Jewish interpretations, and The Bible and slavery

Some critics assert that the Curse of Ham described in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 9:20–27) and in the Talmud was a primary cause for the belief held by many Europeans that black Africans were inferior race, and was used as justification by anti-black racists. Scholar David M. Goldenberg analyzed the arguments of the critics, and concluded that they were basing their conclusions on faulty interpretations of Rabbinical sources. Goldenberg concludes that the Judaic texts do not explicitly contain anti-black precepts, but instead later race-based interpretations were applied to the texts by later, non-Jewish analysts.

Some critics assert that slavery is endorsed by the Hebrew Bible, and that that endorsement provided justification and support for the slave trade.

Nur Masalha asserts that some modern religious Zionists have used religious writings of Maimonides to support race-based ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

The more proposals you provide, the more it seems as if you are trying to string together disparate items to craft a polemic. I disagree with having this or any other section until we work out the issues from which the article already suffers. See below regarding issues of indiscrimination and original research. -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied below, and I'll summarize that here: The scope of this article is to document critical (negative) claims about Judaism, as documented by reliable secondary sources. If reliable academic sources describe "Judaism was a primary factor in racism and slavery" as a negative criticism of Judaism's precepts/texts, then it should be so reflected in this article. As editors, we may disagree with the criticisms; and we may disagree with the analysis of scholars, but that is no reason to exclude criticisms from the article. Instead, if we (editors) disagree with a criticism then there are probably secondary sources that share our disagreement, and the best approach is to find those sources and include their balancing analysis in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Rejection of concept of a personal God"

Bus stop: you deleted this section, without any discussion on the Talk page. This is old content, going back a couple of years, I believe. Can you explain why you deleted it? --Noleander (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What isn't criticism of Judaism? Spinoza does not accept that God is involved in human lives — and that constitutes criticism of Judaism? No, that is a philosophical difference of opinion. Are you saying that religious debate constitutes criticism of Judaism? Can you cite anything that relates to Judaism that does not contain an element of "criticism" of Judaism?

And by the way, you didn't address, above, my question concerning this article being in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That is an important point. The article is at present not defined. It is a haphazard assembly of virtually anything. Please try to tell me what criteria define what warrants inclusion and exclusion from this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A criteria for inclusion is: "Critical (i.e. negative) claims about Judaism (its precepts, texts, leaders, and their consquences) that are documented by reliable secondary sources". --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That criterion is much too broad. Otherwise, the article would turn into a tabloid-style polemic of anything negative ever printed about Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued below in section "Consensus needed for scope of article". --Noleander (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Rejection of concept of Chosen People"

"Many people, such as Baruch Spinoza, Moses Mendelssohn and Mordecai Kaplan, have criticized Judaism because its texts describe Jews as the Chosen People."

How is this a criticism of Judaism? These 3 philosophers of Judaism reject the notion of superiority, which was understood (erroneously?) by them and others, as indicating a notion of elitistism. If the Labor government has been "chosen" to run the UK, does that make them superior? In some way yes, in others, no. Jewish doctrine is open to much debate, argument and interpretation. The philosophical arguments between the Rambam and Ramban are an example. Are we to view as a criticism the rationalist approach by Ramban who believed that the work of Creation happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days, against the view of Ramban who wrote that it took place in six days as we know it? How early Christians and other bible "critics" perceived and understood the meaning of "chosenness" as mentioned in the Bible is more accurately a criticism of them, who wished to interpret texts in a disparaging fasion, more than of Judaism itself. Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your question, but as editors it is not our job to selectively pick-and-choose the reliable secondary sources. If reliable academic sources describe "rejection of a chosen people" as a negative criticism of Judaism's precepts, then it should be so reflected in this article. As editors, we may disagree with the criticisms; and we may disagree with the analysis of scholars, but that is no reason to exclude criticisms from the article. Instead, if we (editors) disagree with a criticism then there are probably secondary sources that share our disagreement, and the best approach is to find those sources and include their balancing analysis in the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Chesdovi (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV by Bustop and Avi

Please note that although this page lists criticisms, it should also provide a differing point of view to provide a NPOV. It otherwise gives the impression these criticisms are not addressed and are "valid". E.g. "However, many view circumcision as an important religious ritual, involving only minor pain." should be re-added, together with the other neutralising sentences. Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The criticism of circumcision is valid. Bris milah is painful. I guarantee you that no man wants even "minor" pain to his penis. Referring to it as an "important religious ritual" is meaningless. Religion is not science. Rituals are part of religions for reasons that defy rational explanation. Are there more important religious rituals and less important religious rituals? This article is not being written to educate the gadol hador. The average reader does not want to be plied with meaningless tripe. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on providing balance. Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance alone is misleading, as that would allow even non-notable, fringe criticisms to be inserted with the false premise of balance. Valid criticisms are valid criticisms. There are many people who disagree with the concept of a bris for that reason. This is not the article to expand and expound on the meaningfulness of covenants, the appropriateness of sacrifice to cleave to the divine, etc. However, in this case, a short mention of how l'fi many authorities the pain of a bris is minimal and fleeting is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Criticisms from Christianity"

Can theological debates in the form of disputations be called criticism? Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" remains undefined for the purposes of this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, how can Jewish rejection of Jesus and admonishment of Paul, be viewed as criticism of Judaism, when it was Jews who rejected him based on their scriptures, while Christians used those very same scriptural passages to validate their claim!? Chesdovi (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If reliable academic sources describe "rejection of Jesus" as a negative criticism of Judaism, then it should be so reflected in this article. As editors, we may disagree with the criticisms; and we may disagree with the analysis of scholars, but that is no reason to exclude criticisms from the article. Instead, if we (editors) disagree with a criticism then there are probably secondary sources that share our disagreement, and the best approach is to find those sources and include their balancing analysis in the article. Regarding "rejection of Jesus": When a religion splits into two schisms, the schisms usually criticize each others tenets and precepts: do you think those criticisms should be captured in the encyclopedia? Do you think that scholars have documented how Chr. and J. religions heavily "bad mouthed" each others tenets during the early centuries of Christianity? Should such documentation by scholars be summarized in this encyclopedia? If so, which articles? --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The disagreement between the two religions is better placed at Anti-Judaism. This page is for "scholarly" (presumably modern) criticism. Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See comment below in section "Criticism from Islam" --Noleander (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, are the criticisms of Jewish prophets to the Jews regarding their sinful behaviour also a criticism of Judaism? The article must make clear whether is addresses criticism of Jewish religious texts, or of the actions and practices of Jews, or both. Chesdovi (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your statment "The article must make clear ..." and I support additional detail to that end. --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Section "Violence"

Judaism has been criticized because its religious texts allegedly endorse or glorify violence, including violence against innocent peoples. The battle of Jericho (Joshua 6:1–27), the story of Amalekites (1 Sam 15:1–6), the story of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1–18), and the Purim festival are cited as sources of violent attitudes that are allegedly endorsed by Judaism and its religious texts."

The biblical battles cannot endorse violence because those were fought upon direct command of God. They record historical events and cannot be cited as reason for wars nowadays. It is interesting to note that the examples brought here are of those solely in which the Israelites initiated them, while there are other instances where they were themselves attacked. Also the claim that they are "innocent" is fraudulent. The source for information of these battles comes only from the bible. All reasons for their waging of war may not have been recorded, so it is wrong to state that they were "innocent", also, in those times, possibly the rules of war did not distinguish between combatants, so the word "innocent" here is misplaced. The story of Purim, which records the self defensive measures taken by the Jews themselves to prevent an ancient holocaust cannot be called a criticism of Judaism. Chesdovi (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but this article is simply capturing criticisms of Judaism that are documented by secondary sources. For instance, if peace activist A says "Islam and Judaism are horrible religions because they endorse violence", that alone would not be sufficient for inclusion. But if author David Hirst in his book The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East writes "... peace activists have criticised Islam and Judaism for providing justification and motivation for recent conflicts ..." (not a real quote, BTW) then he is a secondary source, and (provided he is reliable) that source warrants inclusion. If an editor believes that the criticism documented by Hirst is not valid, or is portrayed inaccurately by him, then the solution is not to delete the content from this article, but instead to add clarifying or balancing information. --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The appropriateness and notability of David Hirst or any other source vis-a-vis this article would need to be established first as well. -- Avi (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noleander — Can you cite anything that is not a criticism of Judaism? Please choose from among those things that relate to Judaism. Can you find anything that bears any relationship to Judaism that doesn't constitute "criticism" of Judaism? How can anything exist that impinges upon Judaism that does not contain at least some element of criticism of Judaism within it? Please try to give me an example of something that you feel cannot possibly be construed as being critical of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If the source refers to the Bible, then it belongs at Biblical criticism which is the: "investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings... and asks what message it was intended to convey." Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is poorly defined in the extreme. It is catchment for whatever impinges upon the general subject of Judaism that an editor choses to construe in its negative as well as positive nature. Criticism is not just negative. Criticism is understood to involve judging and shedding light on a subject. Neutral point of view is built into the subject of this article. Criticism of Judaism involves critical thinking in relation to the entity known as Judaism. The major problem with that is its very boundlessness. An improvement to this article would involve changing its name to "Negative criticism of Judaism", since that is what it is about. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article has obviously become a coatrack for all manner of anti-Jewish sentiment that may of may not be actual criticism of Judaism. I will be frank and admit that I am not familiar with and have not seen most of the sources that Noleander is using for his edits. The most easily obtainable one see right now is The God Delusion by Dawkins. I'll be running some errands later and will pick up a copy. I think what's needed here is for other editors who are interested in this article to run down some of his sources and see if they say what the article claims. I'll get back either later today or tomorrow on what I find. It's important to remember, of course, that Judaism is a religion and the Bible is a book(not the same thing at all), and not everyone who has found objectionable material in the Bible is criticizing or attempting to criticize any of the religions that regard it as holy scripture. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Further comment) I just followed up by looking into some of the internet references on the article. I found three that were clearly misrepresented, not containing criticisms of Judaism as claimed in the article. One of them was nothing more than a blog post. I deleted these. I could have deleted more, but I was giving the sources every conceivable benefit of the doubt. I fully expect those deletions to be reverted. Consequently, I ask that other editors here participate fully in the resolution of any dispute that may arise. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start

I've restored the article to the last sensible, rational version ... so this remedies the irrational inconsistencies identified immediately above in this Talk page. If we could re-start with this version, and try to improve it (rather than delete whole sections) that would be nice. I'll start by deleting the "Criticism from Islam" section, since I believe that was - properly - moved to anti-Judaism article. For the remaining sections, they are all clearly within scope, but certainly can stand to be improved as far as wording, cites, etc. So we should focus on that. I'm not aware of any additional notable criticisms, other than slavery, that could be added to the article. If you want to add tags, the WP policy requires a note here on the Talk page identifying the specific shortcomings, and giving an indication of what sort of remedy would help eliminate the tags. --Noleander (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, you restored it to a version that Bus Stop, Debresser, JGordon, I, and others felt included too many ancillary, unrelated, unsupported, and improper sections. I have restored the article to the point it was prior to the posting of the most recent RfC. -- Avi (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange you didn't mention JayJG. Were you the editor he asked to "watch his back" in 2007? [1] ... or was that a different Avi? --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, now we break out the ad hominem arguments. For the record, since that time I have been either elected or appointed to various positions that required that wikimedians on basically all projects had to explicitly judge on whether or not I am trustworthy, and thankfully each time they did, so I think that I have demonstrated my trustworthiness, fairness, and responsibility to members of pretty much every project. So other than to make yourself look venal and petty, do you have a particular reason to bring that up? -- Avi (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to work with other editors to remedy the shortcomings, namely:

• Tags need rationale on talk page
• Significant content missing
• Content deleted without prior discussion on talk page
• Inconsistent scope compared to other "Criticism of ..." articles.

If other editors don't want to engage here on the Talk page, I'll unilaterally remedy those shortcomings, but I'd rather do it collaboratively. --Noleander (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur; oh well. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, for the record since you seem to have forgotten:

• the tags were given rationalizations on the talk page
• Inappropriate content was removed, and yes, there was an inordinate amount of inappropriate content removed
• Removal was discussed on talk page or, for obvious ones, listed plainly in edit summaries
• Mistakes in other articles are not excuses for making the same mistakes here

Lastly, unilateral editing against consensus is against wikipedia policy. Please remember that the privilege of editing the wikipedia project is contingent on acceptance of abiding by its policies and guidelines. On your own webpage or blog you may post whatever you desire, but wikipedia has policies and guidelines that govern it. -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, I see that you unilaterally returned material deemed inappropriate by multiple editors. Other than yourself, for the most part there appears to be a consensus to have much of the irrelevant material removed. Without a consensus to restore it, unilateral restoration may be viewed as disruptive editing. Please also review WP:OWN. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To add a fresh perspective (directed from Avi's request for new eyes at the Wikiproject Judaism), I've reviewed Noelander's 'fresh start' change. Independently of the process, history, and tags involved (on which I am not about to comment, it seems to me that the content that he restored was valuable and appropriate. The only reservation I'd have is if the scope of the article really ought to include intra-Jewish criticism, or single-movement-specific criticisms. Savant1984 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't been part of the discussions regarding that content, nor seen the arguments for or against its inclusion, it's hard to see how you can make an informed comment on its appropriateness. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Beyond my (superficial) going through some of the archives, you are, of course, correct. I offer(ed) it merely as my sense looking at it with fresh eyes. My sense from what I've gleaned from the (binders) of discussion is that the criteria for inclusion proposed by many here seems to me to be untenably narrow. Phenomena that are asserted by notable groups as being notable elements of Judaism that are criticised at a notable level by other notable groups strike me as being, well notable, and encyclopedic to boot. :) Savant1984 (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow Jayjg, you're not even gonna hide your voting anymore? You're going to actively attempt to drive editors who disagree with you away? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See link. We don't tell editors responding to a Request For Comment that their opinions are not welcome. WP:Consensus can change. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, what on earth are you talking about? This isn't an RFC, this is a regular Talk: page section, and I didn't tell anyone their opinions aren't welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I hope for your sake that's feigned ignorance. I have no interest in comparing e-peens with you, so if my comments are truely confusing, then they will forever remain a mystery. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "feigning" anything; you've made some groundless and fairly absurd accusations, and failed miserably to support them. Now, please stick to discussing article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I wish to nominate this page for deletion as it is clearly Original Research and entirely unencyclopedic. If a registered editor or admin can please complete the AfD process I would be grateful. Thank you. 71.235.101.111 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read this article, the more I tend to agree. It is a bunch of disparate discussions on varous aspects some of which can be considered exclusive or belonging somewhere else. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus needed for scope of article

Based on the discussions above, we need to get consensus on the scope of the article. After reviewing the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, I propose the following scope for this article:

1. It documents criticisms about Judaism's religious texts, precepts, doctrines, practices, policies, and laws.
2. Content must be notable, following WP:Notable
3. Content must be supported by reliable sources, following WP:Reliable source. Secondary sources are required. Scholarly/academic sources are preferred.
4. All content must be neutral and balanced (generally achieved by including balancing information that rebuts the criticism or gives a fuller explanation of the law/practice/text)
5. All content must be worded in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion
6. When the criticism is already discussed in another (more focused) article, this article will have a WP:Summary style summary, with a "main" link to the other article.

How does that sound? I believe it is consistent with the scope of the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, and in fact is more restrictive, because it requires secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Would Rambams Moreh Nebukim be included here, as it is a religious text? This text faced enormous criticism at the time from within the Jewish community; as did his Mishneh Torah, which is cited here regarding discrimination against non-Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question. My point in creating this section is: this Talk page has about five different sections (above) asking whether a given criticism belongs in this article or not. Rather than have five duplicative discussions, we could start with a higher-level discussion in this section, here. After we arrive at consensus on the scope (in general), we could then apply that consensus to individual criticisms (such as slavery, "personal god", Moreh Nebukim, etc). Does that sound like a good plan? --Noleander (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Would we be able to include criticism on Mishneh Torah it being a religious text, although itself being the subject of criticism as to whether it is to be considered a religious text, i.e. what is included in religious texts? Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, you are asking about item (1) in the proposed scope: "It documents criticisms about Judaism's religious texts ...". I suggest that texts should be limited to Hebrew Bible, Talmud, Tosefta , Sefer Hamitzvot, Mishneh Torah, and Chiddushei haRamban. Criticism of other texts should not be in this article, and are better in the articles on those specific texts. Some broader criticisms may identify other texts, for instance, the criticism "insults directed at Jesus": the secondary sources list Toledot Yeshu as a text cited by the (primary source) critics, but that is done within a list of other examples, not on its own. In addition, of course, any content would need to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. The Moreh Nebukim aka The Guide for the Perplexed, seems to be a bit of a borderline case and I would have no objection to excluding it from the scope of this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — why is this article called "Criticism of Judaism"? Isn't this article's primary purpose the amassing of negative material relating to Judaism? Yes, your conceptualization of this article seems to allow for the occasional counterbalancing "positive" material where applicable. But what is this article's primary purpose? Isn't this article's primary purpose the compiling of negative material relating to Judaism? If that is the case, why is it not named "Negative criticism of Judaism"? Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not create the article, so I cannot comment on why the article was originally so named. However, the name does appear to be consistent with the other, similar articles Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Mormonism, etc. Note that all of those articles - including Criticism of Judaism were created in the years 2004 to 2006, and so have been around for several years. Reviewing the Talk pages and AfDs of those articles, it appears that the community's consensus is that "Criticism of religion" is a significant topic that has lots of secondary sources, and is sufficiently notable to warrant dedicated articles. In other words, the "primary purpose" of the set of "Criticism of someReligion" articles is to help readers of the encyclopedia find critical content, in a single place (much like any WP:list or WP:Summary style article). You are welcome to suggest a name change to "Negative criticisms of ..." but I think the word "criticism" already implies negativity, so that may be a bit redundant (plus there is the issue of consistency with the other "Criticism of ... " article titles). --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — in your conception of this article, is there a legitimate place for positive criticism? Criticism, of course, doesn't only refer to negative criticism. Neutral point of view would of course apply to commentary based on sources complimentary of Judaism, meaning that negative criticism relating to that same point would have a place for legitimate presentation right after the critique of Judaism that favorably presents an aspect of Judaism. Please tell me if this is your understanding of how this article should operate. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article should be consistent with the other "Criticism of ... " articles in the encyclopedia. The pattern that seems to be the community consensus is: The positive information is primarily presented in the main article on the religion (e.g. Islam, Christianity, etc). Those articles generally have little or no negative information (mostly due to space limitations). Each religion has a "Criticism of ..." article. That article is linked-to in the "See also" section of the primary religion article, and in the sidebar template for the religion. The "Criticism of ... " article is a WP:Summary style article containing notable (negative) criticisms, each presented in a neutral, balanced manner. The balancing information often contains "positive" information about the law/practice/leader being criticized, but that inevitably follows the negative criticism. I understand that the word "criticism" can include positive assessments (especially in regard to art and literature) but in the context this encyclopedia, the pattern is to have the "Criticism of ... " articles focus on negative criticisms. And that convention is not limited to articles on religion: the encyclopedia has scores of other "Criticism of .." articles such as Criticism of Wikipedia, and they are all enumerations of notable negative criticisms. My observation is that, for every negative criticism, there is ample positive balancing information that can be presented, immediately following, so that readers do not get misled. For instance, if we add a section on "Slavery" to this article, it would include information about how ancient Jewish slavery rules were very lenient (release after 7 yrs, etc), information about Jewish support for abolition, etc. That holds true for every criticism. --Noleander (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — We are trying to improve or delete this article. Various other Wikipedia articles have their own Talk pages. Please try to confine your reasoning and thoughts to this article on this Talk page. Of course you can bring up your comparisons between what you see as the relatedness between this article and other articles, elsewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps at some pages expressly geared for that purpose, but I think this Talk page should be reserved for this article.

Criticism includes evaluating merits, and it would be my contention that this article is an evaluation of Judaism. That is not only in keeping with the definition of criticism but that is in keeping with WP:NPOV.

You mention "Jewish support for abolition." If something of that nature is to be included in this article we would require a source attributing "support for abolition" to the religion itself, not to the religious identity of the people who might have supported "abolition". A source merely asserting that Jews supported abolition is hardly a critical evaluation of the religion that the article is ostensibly about. I believe that making such an assertion (in the absence of close adherence to a source linking the religion to the stance against abolition) would be a violation of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR.

You mention "(negative) criticisms, each presented in a neutral, balanced manner". I don't think that makes sense. I don't think that contains internal logic. Here is why: If they are "negative", they cannot be "balanced". Conforming to WP:NPOV requires neutrality from the outset. Conformance with WP:NPOV entails restoring the neutrality that prevails from the beginning, and which is the natural, default "reset" for the article. This article does not begin with neutrality, but rather, in the conception of some of its editors — with negativity and with negativity only. If in the conception of some editors this article has its natural state in the "non-neutral" zone, then this article is in violation of Wikipedia's core principle of WP:NPOV.

This article should be deleted because it is impossible to implement WP:NPOV when the article opens with negativity and in the understanding of some editors has a default orientation to a negative slant on its core subject matter. It would be my contention that the "core" subject matter of this article is Judaism. If this article is "reset" to a negative slant on Judaism "automatically" at each section break, then it is inherently inconsistent with the principle of WP:NPOV. It is to be understood that the default mode of any Wikipedia article is a mode consistent with a neutral point of view, as well the few other basic and nonnegotiable principles of Wikipedia. This article posits for itself the premise that its default mode should be one which is in violation of one of Wikipedia's core and nonnegotiable principles.

I think that there are other more straightforward ways of accomplishing what this article purports to have as its goal without circumventing Wikipedia's principles. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are not "getting the point". You keep side-tracking the discussion by suggesting "the article should be deleted" but you never nominate it for deletion. If you are not nominating it for deletion, we can only conclude that you are resigned to its existence, so we should turn our attention to how to improve it. Which is it? --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — (unindent) If it is not deleted it requires significant change. It is in violation of WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV is operationally disabled under its present conceptualization, articulated by you. You have said (correct me if I am wrong) that only negative criticism should be in this article.

The purpose of WP:NPOV is to restore balance, when possible, by presenting countervailing points of view, based on reliable sources. But this article, in your conceptualization of it, cannot have WP:NPOV restored, because WP:NPOV is not present from the start. This article, begins with the premise that Judaism is vulnerable to valid negative criticism, and it repeats that premise with each section of the article. Imbalance is the normal state of this article in your conceptualization of it so balance via WP:NPOV can never be restored to it.

If you want to work on improving the article, instead of deleting it, please try to re-conceptualize it to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. In point of fact I have made suggestions of how to improve the article. I've suggested that the article include positive as well as negative criticism of Judaism. In each instance WP:NPOV could be brought to bear. Our aim should be to transform this article into a normal Wikipedia article that conforms to all nonnegotiable principles. Bus stop (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is, and will be, a WP:Summary style list of negative criticisms, just like all the other "Criticism of .." articles in this encyclopedia. Why do you think this article deserves special treatment in this encyclopedia? --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What does it being a WP:SUMMARY style article have to do with anything? I really don't know why you are pointing out that it is a summary style article. I believe that all articles must conform to WP:NPOV. Or are summary style articles somehow an exception to this? Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is subject to the NPOV rule. However the POV policy clearly states that it is not a POV fork to have a "criticism of" sub-article if the primary article does not have sufficient room to contain the negative material. The article on Islam has virtually no negative information about Islam, instead the negative criticisms are located in the article Criticism of Islam. Ditto for Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Wikipedia, and scores of other "Criticism of .. " articles. The community has repeatedly reviewed those articles, and concurred that they are not POV violations or POV forks. Read the Talk pages and AfD histories. The neutral POV policy is satisfied in the "Criticism of ..." articles by (1) ensuring they are worded in a neutral, encyclopedic manner; and (2) ensuring that balancing information is included. Now please answer my question: What is it about this article that deserves special treatment compared to other "Criticism of .." articles? --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — this is the Talk page for this article. We are trying to improve this article. Can we agree on that? This is the Talk page associated with the Criticism of Judaism article. Are we on the same page, so far?

It is this article that disables the Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV. This article begins with the assumption that Judaism is criticizable. And it is this article that returns section by section to reiterate the theme that Judaism is criticizable. The title of this article strongly states that Judaism is criticizable. I tried to remedy this. I suggested that we include positive criticism as well as negative criticism. In my conception of such a resulting article, this article would be transformed into a critique of Judaism, with a functional WP:NPOV principle. You rejected that suggestion. Thus we are back with an article that starts out with and repeats throughout it that Judaism is criticizable. Such an article does not allow WP:NPOV to function. Such an article is a condemnation of Judaism by its existence. WP:NPOV cannot remedy the problem created by the article because the article is the problem. Your conceptualization of the article — that only negative criticism of Judaism can be included — is in violation of the Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV. If you are interested in improving this article I think you should consider reconceptualizing it so that Judaism is not condemned from the outset. The article as presently conceptualized by you is a drumbeat that "Judaism is bad." Section by section it repeats the same refrain. This is a good example of what should not be — in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has WP:NPOV for a reason. Articles are supposed to be balanced. Wikipedia functions on the input of an enormous number of editors (by the standards of most traditional encyclopedias). WP:NPOV performs its miracles because editors counterbalance one another. Editors rely upon the notion of WP:NPOV as their justification for inserting material that differs from and sometimes completely contradicts material put into the article by another editor. But the article itself is never a violation of WP:NPOV. This article is an exception. In this article Judaism is damned from the outset, and subsequently by each succeeding section. The article itself is the problem.

When you reply, please try to address what I am saying. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of religion is a very notable topic, and many primary sources criticize religions, and many secondary sources analyze those criticisms. So, yes, it deserves its own article. Not only does Criticism of religion have an article, but every single major religion has its own "Criticism of ... " religion article (limited to negative criticisms). Those articles exist not because malicious editors are trying to malign religions, but rather because there is abundant primary and secondary sources precisely on the criticisms themselves. If you'll review the sources cited in this article, you'll see there is a vast amount of material criticizing the religion, and that it deserves to be documented in this article, just like the other scores of "Criticism of ..." articles. You keep repeating your opinion over and over, and I keep encouraging you to submit a nomination for Deletion, but you never do. I'm not sure what other information I can give you. Please read the sources and the other Talk pages, and you'll see what the community consensus is. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — There are also "abundant primary and secondary sources" offering high grades to Judaism. You are saying that such sources are available offering negative criticism. Are you aware that there are such sources offering positive criticism? And you are asking me to "review the sources cited in this article" but this is an article that in your conceptualization only allows for the inclusion of negative criticism of Judaism. The "cards are stacked against" Judaism in the article that you are conceptualizing. An alternative article can exist that might be called "Critique of Judaism." That might be an article that fulfills the hopes you have for this article. Such an article can have actual criteria for what sort of material deserves inclusion. I would suggest that criteria for inclusion in such an article would be broad material presented supportive of and detractive of the religion. At present you not only have an article ludicrously stacked against Judaism but you have no criteria for what gets included in this article. Thus you have material in this article not even tangential to the religion. Do you really think internal disagreements over matrilineal/patrilineal descent constitutes "criticism" of Judaism? It is in the article now. You say that you are interested in an article on the negative criticism of Judaism, but doesn't it logically make sense to allow the editorial process to play itself out in Wikipedia fashion to achieve that end result? WP:NPOV would create in such an article a real presentation of both the positive and the negative critiques that reliable sources present for the religion of Judaism. The reader would still be able to read either the negative criticism or the positive criticism selectively if they so chose. Such an article would have real criteria governing inclusion and exclusion plus it would have a fully operational WP:NPOV principle. The present article is an artificially created damnation of Judaism. It is a noteworthy departure from standard Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I have been following this discussion and concur predominantly with Bus Stop. I agree that there exist notable criticisms of Judaism and that there is a place in wikipedia for such criticisms to be discussed. However, this article had turned into a laundry list of negative remarks, often unrelated to Judaism (merely involving Jews), which violated numerous wikipedia polices as listed by myself, Bus Stop, and others multiple times. At this point, I think it remains possible to salvage the article without undergoing an AfD and rebuilding it, but the pattern of seemingly google-searching for negative blurbs and sentences and expanding those into paragraphs should not continue. I am afraid that similar problems exist with the other Criticism articles on other religions, but my expertise is in Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it sounds like we are in agreement that the article should exist. That is something :-) I also agree with you that the article should not include information unrelated to the religion or its texts, so that is even more consensus. I think the next step would be to identify specific topics, and try to list which ones should or should not be in the article. Every topic I can conceive of belonging in this article is already listed above in this talk page (or in the article history). Examples are: slavery, kosher slaughter, "personal god", etc. Perhaps we could try to consider those individually, and apply the criteria listed above (notable? reliable sources? related to Judaism?) --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not in agreement that "the article should exist." The "article" is a damnation of Judaism. It is unnecessarily so. I think this article needs some significant alterations. You may not recognize it in its "improved" form. An article of this nature, like all Wikipedia articles, has to pit editors "against" one another in order for WP:NPOV to emerge. No way is there WP:NPOV where positive criticism is excluded.

Carefully chosen criteria is the key to a real article critiquing Judaism. I propose criteria restricted to only those well-sourced assertions addressing the religion in the broadest sense. Thus, under scrutiny would be such criteria as:

1.) monotheism,

2.) law (religious law),

3.) Jews as a "family",

4.) education (secular and/or religious).

These are criteria that I think most people, including most editors on Wikipedia, would agree are (some of the) standard hallmarks of the religion of Judaism. These are very broad criteria.

1.) Monotheism has its detractors. And it has its supporters. Good quality secondary sources can be found characterizing monotheism in a positive and in a negative light.

2.) Religious law, while not followed by the majority of Jews, is still a major hallmark of the Jewish religion. The following of religious law is one of the main distinctions between Christianity and Judaism. Before I go any further and get anyone's dander up, let me assure you all that I am not making any value judgements. But, by and large, Christianity distinguishes itself from Judaism by an early (in Christianity) decision to no longer follow religious law. This is based on sound (to Christians) reasoning, involving the pivotal importance of what Christians believe is the messiah in Jesus. There bears a relationship between Judaism and Islam based on Talmudic law, but I'm not knowledgeable to say much on it.

3.) Criteria number three that I mentioned above concerns the idea that all Jews in a certain sense constitute one "family." This is both based on a degree of truth and it is an extremely popular Wikipedia notion. Sources can be found to vilify that and sources can be found to praise that.

4.) My fourth criteria concerns education — both religious and secular. Few sources can probably be found to detract from secular education. But no doubt a lot of sources can be found supporting and detracting for instance from Jewish religious learning especially when it is carried to what many would characterize as extremes.

If anyone can think of other fundamental hallmarks of the religion Judaism, they can be considered for inclusion too. But this article should be written as a normal article. Both the positive and the negative should be included, probably by motivated, even passionately motivated editors. That is the way Wikipedia works. It is that opposition that makes Wikipedia work.

For an article such as the one proposed above I would propose an article name of "Critique of Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Those topics you mention already have articles: Jewish law, Jewish education, Monotheism, etc. If you want to add positive and negative criticism into those articles, go ahead. This article is a WP:Summary style article that, like all "Criticism of .." articles in this encyclopedia, summarizes negative criticisms in a neutral, balanced way. If you don't like this article, propose it for deletion. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You've lost me now. First of all, there is not an article on "Monotheism in Judaism," or some such title. Second point: this article inexplicably is called "Criticism of Judaism," despite, as you are arguing, "monotheism" is not under consideration. If so, then why give it the grandiose title of "Criticism of Judaism?" Another point: this article covers the topic of "chosen people," despite the existence of the article Jews as a chosen people. Ditto for Disputation, Supersessionism, Toledot Yeshu, Yeshu, Criticism of Conservative Judaism, Religious Zionism, Land of Israel, and on and on and on. Are you perhaps saying that this is a selective criticism of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Read the other "Criticism of ..." articles. Then resume the discussion here and be prepared to discuss why this article deserves special treatment. --Noleander (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, mistakes in some wikipedia articles are not reasons to perpetuate them in others. There is no reason why the article cannot be cast the way Bus Stop states (critique--which is both positive and negative criticism) about items which are fundemental to Judaism as a religion). Specific issues about specific laws should be handled in the articles on those laws (Shechita, Niddah, etc.). There exist discussions about the hallmarks of Judaism as a religion, and I think that has a place in this project, but not the laundry list. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The other "Criticism of ..." articles have been around for 5 or 6 years, and have been repeatedly nominated for deletion, and they are kept every time. You and user bus stop are not alone: other editors have objected to the other "Criticism of .. " articles, but the decision of the community, expressed over six years, is that that class of article, particularly when applied to religions, is appropriate. Let's spend our time ensuring that the sections in this article are notable and balanced, shall we? --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — There is no point in "ensuring that the sections in this article are notable and balanced" if they if they are irrelevant. Convoluted reasoning connects the present content of the article to the religion Judaism. Criteria are called for. For instance: Judaism is a monotheistic religion. Sources containing criticism of Judaism based on its being a monotheistic religion can probably be found. Also for instance: Judaism is a religion characterized by religious law. Sources containing criticism of Judaism based on the presence of its religious law can probably be found. This would constitute criticism of Judaism. Yes, resulting material from valid criteria would have to be "notable and balanced". But I think a priority is establishing criteria. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, does that mean you are willing to work together on this article, and we can move on to identifying which criticisms belong in this article, and which are too minor/irrelevant? As a start, perhaps you could pick a few (for example, slavery, kosher slaughter, and "personal god") and give your opinion on whether those are relevant to Judaism's laws/texts/precepts or not. I believe there are only around ten or so criticisms that have been proposed (see Talk page history). --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The examples you are giving, "slavery, kosher slaughter, and "personal god", are not criteria by which Judaism would be critiqued. They are peripheral to what Judaism is.

Judaism is not a religion that has much to do with slavery, except perhaps concerning the seminal tale of Jews released from slavery in the land of Egypt millennia ago and recounted in the Passover Seder. Judaism is a not a religion that concerns itself to a truly noteworthy degree with slavery, in my opinion.

Judaism is not a religion that has to do with kosher slaughter. This is an error in the present conceptualization of the article. Kosher slaughter is one of a large number of religious laws. The religious laws themselves are a noteworthy aspect of the religion of Judaism. In their totality the presence of religious laws are a defining characteristic of the religion of Judaism, in my opinion. Nonobservant Jews are not by and large unaware of the presence of the Jewish religious laws. They simply choose not to observe them.

And Judaism is not a religion that has anything to do with a "personal god," in my opinion. Monotheism states that there is an all-knowing God. "Personal God" is an outgrowth of the assumption that God "knows" everything. Of course He is personal! How could He not be "personal" if He knows everything?

The factors you've mentioned are not defining characteristics of Judaism in my opinion, and therefore do not warrant inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #15, 16, 17 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, limiting the article to only criticisms of "defining characteristics" leads to absurd results. Consider the following:

• Catholicism - Criticism that leaders engage in excessive child abuse
• Islam - Criticism that it encourages excessive violence
• Mormonism - Criticism that its early doctrines included polygamy

Under your suggested limitation, none of those prominent criticisms would be included in discussions of those faiths, which is an absurd result. --Noleander (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — are you asking me to address Catholicism and Islam and Mormonism on this Talk page? Those articles have associated Talk pages. There is also the WP:Village Pump where you may want to bring up this issue. As far as this article is concerned, which is the ostensible purpose of this Talk page, I've asked you what criteria should apply to this article. Can you please tell me how you envision appropriate criteria guiding the writing of this article? I've tried my best to articulate proper criteria as I see them. Please try to engage in that dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking you to discuss Islam. I'm pointing out why your suggested limitation on the scope of the article is irrational. Any reasonable person would view the following as criticisms of Judaism (and appropriate for this article):

• Judaism (and Islam) are responsible for conflict in the mid-East (so claim some critics)
• Judaism is founded on false, mythical stories about Moses, and God talking to moses (so claim some critics)
• Judaism, in its traditional formulations, involves many unnecessary practices and rituals (so claim some critics)
• Judaism has many religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews (so claim some critics)
• Judaism's Hebrew Bible endorses slavery (so claim some critics)
• Judaism's religious laws treat women unfairly (so claim some critics)
• Judaism's religious texts contain many disparaging references to Jesus (so claim some critics)
• Judaism's religious texts glorify and endorse violence (so claim some critics)
• Judaism's religious doctrines have led to land-ownership conflicts in the mid-East (so claim some critics)

There are only a handful of editors that would exclude these topics from this article. Those editors are the ones that are repeated deleting those topics from the article. But - if we could get some other editors involved - the consensus would be clear, and those topics would be included. To summarize the proposed scope of the article: only criticisms of Judaism's texts, laws, and practices would be included, and only if they are documented by reliable secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: Noelander's proposed criteria seem appropriate to me. The cricitisms he has listed are also well-attested, notable criticisms. I, of course, assume good faith about those who disagree, but I'm having trouble not seeing opposition to this article essentially reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not censored. Savant1984 (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some constructive editing

The article's last decent version was in early April 2010, and it will be reverted to that version unless we can have some sensible dialog here. Going around and around in circles avoiding consensus on the scope of the article is childish.

The "I dont like it" and "I can here you" sentiments are not seemly.

The tags will be removed unless specific remedies are identified for each (see discussion above) as required by WP policy; and sections will be restored unless we come to a consensus on a NEW scope (the original scope was the same as as all the other "Criticism of some religion" articles, namely: criticism of the laws, precepts, and texts of the religion").

If someone thinks they have a rational scope for this article that was supported by consensus, please explain it. I did not see consensus above. Saying "no" is not editing. --Noleander (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — You are concerned with the scope of the article and I concur that is a concern. Judaism is a monotheistic religion. This article could criticize Jewish monotheism. Judaism is also a religion of religious laws. The existence of Jewish religious laws is an important theme in Judaism: while nonobservant Jews may not observe halachos, it is generally not for unawareness of the Jewish religious laws. It is often simply because some Jews choose not to observe religious laws. This article could criticize Judaism for being a religion of halachic law. Major themes in Judaism should constitute the scope. Can you suggest any other major themes in Judaism?

Picking little issues that are not Judaism itself hardly constitutes criticism of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

These comments are entirely WP:OR. Stick to the sources please. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — Are you saying you want a source for Judaism being a monotheistic religion? Here we find:

"Judaism is a monotheistic religion which believes that the world was created by a single, all-knowing divinity, and that all things within that world were designed to have meaning and purpose as part of a divine order."

Are you also saying that you want a source for the notion that Judaism involves religious law? Here I find the following:

"Judaism is not just a set of beliefs about G-d, man and the universe. Judaism is a comprehensive way of life, filled with rules and practices that affect every aspect of life: what you do when you wake up in the morning, what you can and cannot eat, what you can and cannot wear, how to groom yourself, how to conduct business, who you can marry, how to observe the holidays and Shabbat, and perhaps most important, how to treat G-d, other people, and animals. This set of rules and practices is known as halakhah."

"The word "halakhah" is usually translated as "Jewish Law," although a more literal (and more appropriate) translation might be "the path that one walks." The word is derived from the Hebrew root Hei-Lamed-Kaf, meaning to go, to walk or to travel."

"Some non-Jews and non-observant Jews criticize this legalistic aspect of traditional Judaism, saying that it reduces the religion to a set of rituals devoid of spirituality. While there are certainly some Jews who observe halakhah in this way, that is not the intention of halakhah, and it is not even the correct way to observe halakhah."

You will note that the above even contains the seed of a "criticism" of Judaism based on a notion that Judaism is inextricably linked to halachic law. The above two examples (monotheism, and religious law) are general themes in Judaism. The possibility exists that these are topics worthy of criticism. Can you think of any other topics that are general themes in Judaism, and therefore representative of Judaism? I think the issues in the article now are only tangentially related to Judaism. Criticizing them does not actually constitute criticism of Judaism. If you are going to "criticize Judaism," I think you must confine such criticism to themes that represent Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Jewish Bible is not an important theme of Judaism? Do I need to provide you with some sources establishing the notability of the Jewish Bible with respect to Judaism? Everything else is WP:SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 11:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How is the Jewish bible an important theme of Judaism? Is Judaism defined by the fact that it has a bible? No, many religions have a bible. I don't think having a bible is a defining characteristic of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to jump in after the fact here. Judaism is absolutely about the Torah, and the Tanakh (and the commentaries), as azure fury provides sources for. Have you been to a shabbat service? the torah scroll is literally worshipped saturday morning, touched with reverence. The Torah IS Israel, to many jews, and this itself is a source of criticism both within and outside of judaism (and not necessarily from an antisemitic pov) To say otherwise is passing strange. I have read the article, and while i do agree that we need more citations, i think it shows a balanced look at the critiques of various aspects of judaism, with fair responses when possible. I dont think this constitutes original research or synthesis, as i think it can be shown relatively easily that many of the critics mentioned here have written whole books covering multiple points of criticism, with enough overlap between each book to constitute a subject for this article. to an earlier point about this being POV: We are not pov here, the commentators are. as long as we present their pov commentary in appropriate context, which i believe we have, this is not an issue. Its not up to us to dismiss all passionate discussion of this subject as POV, thus not possible of being recorded here. And, may i point out that the very essence of what we are doing here at WP stems from the kinds of debates and criticisms within Judaism about itself. This is absolutely a talmudic discussion we are enagaged in. oy vey, its so jewish...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol...the games people will play. Ok, when I get home, I'll take my turn and find you some sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Judaism includes "Hebrew Bible" in the first sentence.
2. Britannica mentions the Hebrew Bible in sentence 2.
3. Encyclopedia.com includes the Hebrew Bible in sentence 3.
4. Infoplease mentions the Torah in sentence 3.
5. Jewish Encyclopedia cites the Bible in sentence 1.
6. Encarta mentions the Bible in sentence 2.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Busstop: your logic is very irrational. I tried to reason with you above, but it is clear that you don't want to work to get consensus. At this point, I'm just trying to capture the issues so if this article ever gets to mediation or arbitration, there will be a good record in the Talk pages. To recapitulate:

• Tags placed in the article by Avi and others, without proper discussion in Talk page on specific shortcomings and possible remedies
• Deletion of content that is clearly within scope of the article (kosher slaughter, Hebrew bible contains allegedly false stories about Moses and God)
• Failure to cooperate in a rational, sensible way in Talk pages (argumentative, non-responsive)

The article is now in an atrocious state. Here is a good example: the Violence section had content on modern violence and ancient violence, but the content on modern violence was deleted because "it was not relevant to the origins/nature of the religion"; yet content regarding slavery was objected to by the same editors because "Hebrew laws only endorsed slavery in ancient times, but in modern times it is no longer practiced" (Im paraphrasing) ... so which is it: does this article include modern practices? ancient practices? or both? Another example: the article includes "internal" criticisms of Conservative branch (from other branches); but the criticisms of the Orthodox/traditional branch (from other branches) was deleted. There is no rhyme or reason to the editing. It is clear that there are a few editors that don't like the article, and rather than spend the time to work on the Talk pages to make it neutral and balanced, they instead delete content randomly. --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. The article has been improved somewhat from the atrocious state it was in, which was the result of a single editor's random googling of any material he thought might reflect negatively on Jews or Judaism, and stuffing it into this article (and one other). Rather than reverting the obvious improvements made, please reflect carefully on the many Talk: page comments outlining exactly what a disaster this approach to editing has produced. A great deal more judicious pruning is required, rather than wholesale reverts to bloated coatracks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That has already been covered many times above: the same 3 or 4 editors complain about the article, but when challenged to explain why this article deserves special treatment compared to other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, there is deafening silence. --Noleander (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — this article is not entitled "Criticism of topics related to Judaism." If a topic is to be included in an article with a name "Criticism of Judaism" it must be actually criticism of Judaism. That would not include just anything relating to Judaism. Therefore one has to start out by asking oneself, "what is Judaism?" I've asked you for criteria. You've said that material had to be reliably sourced. But what are the areas that are representative of Judaism? I am asking you that question. I've suggested a couple of areas above: monotheism and religious law. Judaism is a monotheistic religion and Judaism is characterized by religious law. These are defining characteristics of Judaism. These aspects of Judaism are of sweeping importance. They leave an indelible mark on everything "Jewish." These areas constitute a valid realm for criticism of Judaism. Areas of lesser importance are not really "criticism of Judaism." They are "criticism of topics relating to Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree those are within the scope of the article. Will you agree that criticisms of the laws of Judaism enumerated in the Torah - written and oral - are within the scope of the article? --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — There are mitzvot from the Torah, there are mitzvot from the rabbis, and there are minhagim, or "customs." Viewed from a distance, they are similar in character. They tend to dictate Jewish lives. They of course dictate lives in the observant, but it is important to point out that no Jew — even the nonobservant — are totally unaware of Jewish law. Loosely speaking, all three of the above categories I think can be thought of as "Jewish law," but I think much less gravity is thought of in association with the mere customs, or minhagim. By the way, I find that here. I have taken some liberties with the original material to present my description above.

Judaism is characterized by religious laws that dictate the lives of the observant, and that are not nonexistent in the awareness of the nonobservant. Religious law permeates Judaism, even if only to the extent of a dim awareness in some nonobservant Jewish individuals who may be particularly distant from contact with people and communities embodying a more affirmative relationship to halacha, and who themselves may be lacking in a Jewish educational background. Religious law constitutes a major theme in Judaism. It therefore is a valid area for criticism. But that is not to say that individual religious laws are representative of Judaism. At best they are facets of Judaism. I don't think any religious law is a theme in Judaism. Therefore individual religious laws — from either the written Torah or the Oral Torah — do not constitute valid areas for criticism in an article such as this. That is obviously just my opinion. Others can weigh in on this. Consensus can thus be arrived at.

Think about it — is Judaism a religion of kosher slaughter? No. Kosher slaughter, in and of itself, is not representative of Judaism. Kosher slaughter is not a theme in Judaism. Are Jews people who eat meat that comes from animals slaughtered in a certain way? Is that what characterizes Jews?

I think that a valid area for criticism in this article is religious law itself. The site that I linked to above even has this to say: "Some non-Jews and non-observant Jews criticize this legalistic aspect of traditional Judaism, saying that it reduces the religion to a set of rituals devoid of spirituality." That of course is an example of criticism of "this legalistic aspect of traditional Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll head over to Criticism of the Bible and delete the section on Ethics in the Bible. Afterall, Ethics in the Bible is only a topic RELATED to the Bible, not the Bible itself. Oh, and I should delete anything that references passages from the Bible. Passages from the Bible are clearly not the Bible itself, they're not big enough! The Bible is much bigger than a single passage from the Bible, hence we must exclude Bible passages. This perverted mutation of logic is laughable. I can't believe a former arbiter would buy into this BS, or maybe he hasn't even read it? Perhaps he is content to simply outright contradict the sources and let that stand as his justification for exclusion? It's enlightening to witness the kind of decision making our bureaucracy finds acceptable. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — let me ask you this: is there anything that you would exclude from an article such as this, assuming it had some connection to Judaism? Assuming that there is anything you would exclude, can you articulate what criteria you would apply in order to arrive at what should be included and what should be excluded? Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If the full title of the topic literally refers to something else when the word "Jewish" or similar adjective/identifier is excluded, include (assuming all relevant Wiki policies are satisfied). If excluding Jewish identifiers does not make the title refer to something else, exclude. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — "Criticism of Judaism" starts with "what is Judaism?" The built-in assumptions of this article are problematic. The response from editors such as myself are really a response to the basic premise of the article — that there exists a widely scattered body of negative things to say about Judaism, and that this article's task is to gather them all together in one place. Those are not cogent criteria, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the purpose of a Criticism article. It is convenient when looking to delve into the controversies of a topic to find them all in one place. If you don't like it, nominate the article for deletion or WP:GTFO. We don't delete specific sections of an article because we can't get consensus for deletion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — You say, "That is the purpose of a Criticism article." But what is the purpose of a criticism article without criteria for inclusion? I asked you about that, and this is what you said. Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything to me. I've tried to articulate my criteria. If my suggested criteria are unclear to you, then please feel free to ask me questions about what I've said. Without criteria the article is just an indiscriminate dumping ground. Again: what criteria do you envision determining what should be included in an article such as this? Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If this "doesn't mean anything" to you then perhaps you should excuse yourself from editting this article per WP:COMPETENCE. You asked for criteria. I specified them. Ignoring that is just disruptive editting, and not fooling anyone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what you wrote:

"If the full title of the topic literally refers to something else when the word "Jewish" or similar adjective/identifier is excluded, include (assuming all relevant Wiki policies are satisfied). If excluding Jewish identifiers does not make the title refer to something else, exclude. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)"

Sorry, but from the above I have no way of understanding what your criteria for inclusion might be. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking for out of "criteria," but this is clearly a test that qualifies as criteria, though now as I look at it again, I can myself come up with counter-examples. My thinking was that because "Jewish Bible" without "Jewish" refers to "Bible," a different topic, it should be included. I can't think of any examples that include Jewish that do not refer to something else when jewish is excluded. How about this: we include all criticisms where those criticized are Jews and their actions are blamed on their religion or ethnicity. We also include criticisms aimed at defining characteristics of the religion/ethnicity. Things not satisfying these conditions would be excluded. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, which has been covered many times Noleander, errors in one Wikipedia article are not excuses to propagate them in other articles. It is not our fault that the other "Criticism" articles have not been critiqued (pun intended) as thoroughly by experts on the subject as this one has. -- Avi (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #2,3,4 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, what "other "Criticism of someReligion" articles" have in them is fairly irrelevant, and "deafening silence" is an appropriate response to a non sequitur. The real question is, why should this article be exempt from adhering to basic content policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #3, 8, 11 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

FAQ = tl;dr. Please answer the question, precisely and concisely. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Aww, 10 sentences is too much! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)