Talk:Judaism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Intro on Judaism

Wow, I did not think that my minor edit would be such a big deal but as TWO users have reverted me I'm just going to post this here. I left the following, as support of my edit, on Slrubenstein's talk page. I think it's pretty self explanatory. Especially if you know anything about the English language, history, or religion in general. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed "a set of beliefs and practices" to "a religion" and you changed it back. First of all, per any dictionary in the world, "a set of beliefs and practices" IS the definition of the word religion. I'm NOT changing the meaning of the article whatsoever. I'm just making it more uniform with the Christianity and Islam articles and therefore more user friendly. However, in your edit you said that, "not everyone views it as a religion." Uh, what are you talking about exactly? Judaism IS one of the oldest religions in the world, that's just a fact. It's a religion just the same as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism and Neo-Paganism are religions. The reason America is a Judeo-Christian society is because Judaism and Christianity are the two main religions that have historically been practiced, and have greatly influenced, this country [America]. All the religions I just mentioned have religious texts that are easily identifiable (such as the Qur'an, Old Testament, Poetic Edda, etc.). I'm sure your edit was in good faith, but I just figured I'd let you know why it was a little off. Cheers. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, one of the first things it says in the article is that, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For the main article about ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Now, I could tell you that that means the article IS about the religion known as Judaism, but I think it's self-explanatory. Perhaps when you made that edit you were thinking about the culture of the ethnic group identified as Jews, but as it said in the sentence I quoted, that's a different article. The article we edited is about the religion, not the ethnicity. Happy editing. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just found some more evidence. It says in the second paragraph of the Judaism article, "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[7] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[8][9]" I rest my case now. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add a word. I agree with both of you, but most of all with the old version. Because there are those who see (their) Judaism not as a religion. This is also well-documented. Because I understand both points of view I have not made any edits in this disagreement, but such is my point of view. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that this issue is all just a misunderstanding. My support is quite logical and undeniable in this instance. I understand that Judaism as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion are two different things. But this article is about the religion. It says so many times in the article. Judaism as an ethnicity is a different article that already exists. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Debresser, we need to remind ourselves that it doesn't matter what we feel about Judaism - it is what can be verified and sourced. Judaism is a religion, and there should be uniformity between the main articles of the world's great religions. I therefore agree with Blizzard Beast's edit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard Beast and Debresser, I think you've made strong arguments and I'm going to back out as well. Looking at the main "religion" article, it seems as if these 2 wordings are synonymous even if some culturally and religiously involved Jews are uncomfortable with the idea of Judaism as a religion. A religion doesn't need to be theistic--Unitarian Universalism is not and doesn't even have much of a core set of beliefs and practices. --AFriedman (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have consensus - religion is even broader than what was there previously. Religion it is. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Although I still think all was well as it was and Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it would have applied. Debresser (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my fellow wikipedians. I'm glad this could be swiftly solved. And Debresser, I do agree with that rule. The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam. Encyclopedias should strive for uniformity. We do try that on wikipedia, but it's usually quite difficult. Especially with all the users that can edit, each with their own background and opinions. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Plant-based foods

The article at present states in the Kashrut section that "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods." It shouldn't be saying this. Kashrut is a set of guidelines that determine what is permissible to eat and what is not permissible to eat. This is applicable whether concerning ourselves with animal-based foods or plant-based foods. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a simplification of the issue. And it is definitely true that most of the kashrut laws are related to animal-based food. Since the demands of kashrut of plant-based food are more specific, they do not have to be in this general article. All of this has been discussed before at length, and is rather redundant IMHO. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, You say that "… most of the kashrut laws are related to animal-based food."

No, they are not. I made the edit which asserted that all plant-based foods are kosher. You (and AFriedman) reverted me. Both of you have argued that under some circumstances plant-based foods may not be kosher.

Plant-based foods are rendered not kosher, of course, by kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods.

Indeed, under some circumstances, even plant-based foods can be not kosher. But this is only due to the existence of multitudinous kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods.

Therefore, please remove the incorrect assertion from the article that, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods."

The first order of business is assembling the information for the kashrut section on a logical framework. If space permits further edits can elaborate on that basic information.

Furthermore the reader always has the readily available option of clicking on the link to the Kashrut article if a more thorough exploration is desired.

This article has as its logical task the outlining of the basic laws that constitute kashrut.

The problem is that the kashrut section at present lacks an appropriate logical structure. It was written willy-nilly. Now you (and AFriedman) are making the error of considering almost everything in it to be sacrosanct.

The material in the kashrut section needs to be altered in order to array it in an easy-to-see outline form. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods" is specifically worded this way because some do not, in fact a number do not. One is actually mentioned in the article, the law about non-kosher wines. The sentence does not even say "Most of the laws apply to animal-based foods." Because of its appropriately limited scope, it is a correct sentence. Also, the laws about kashrut are essentially a list. This approach to presenting such information is consistent with other articles. See, for example, a summary of the major attractions in Detroit, Michigan here, written in a listlike fashion but in paragraph form. Detroit is a FA and this treatment of Detroit's attractions, which are scattered throughout Detroit as Kashrut laws are scattered throughout the Torah and elsewhere, is similar to our treatment of Kashrut. If anything, our treatment makes more of an attempt to bring the Kashrut laws together. Here is a summary of the dietary laws in the main article about Islam, which is also a FA. It presents an even rougher overview of Dhabiha Halal than this article does about Kashrut, and the section is considered complete. I don't think the section was written willy-nilly given the nature of the information being presented. --AFriedman (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. And at this moment just about unknowable. First you state the kashrut laws, then you allow the reader to count the number that apply to plant-based foods, versus the number that apply to animal-based foods. It is also original research. Where is your source for the contention that, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods?" Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Whether a particular food is considered kosher or not usually has to do with whether any substance or product used in its manufacture was derived from a non-kosher animal or even an animal that is kosher but was not slaughtered in the prescribed manner." from [1]. Given that at least several of the laws are about meat and other animal products, I think what's in the article is a fair statement that is not OR. --AFriedman (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That statement is only addressing animal-based foods. That statement says nothing about plant-based foods at all. What point are you trying to make? I have seen you do this before. A source has to state something quite clearly in order for it to support a contention. Your source concerning the sciatic nerve in relation to the incident involving Jacob and the angel, said nothing about that incident being the reason for that law of kashrus. That author merely mentioned the two things in passing. One might be able to guess that one is the origin of the other. But as far as a reason given for that law of kashrus — you have not found a source for that. Please learn the difference between reliable sources and original research. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass. BTW, the horse carcass is not kosher :). --AFriedman (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To Bus stop: Kashrut

Bus stop, if you really have a specific vision of how the Kashrut section should look, I think the best thing to do is to rewrite the section so we understand exactly what you want. IMO the existing section is clear, but then again, I'm rather familiar with the subject. Perhaps you could write an alternative section in one of your Userpage subpages, and share it with us. Or, I'd be happy to lay off changing your edits to the Kashrut section for a few days or so, so you can think about what you want. I think it's unlikely that all your changes will be outright reverted after a short period of time. More probably, you'll motivate other people to edit the section and your ideas will be incorporated into a new and improved Kashrut section. What do you think of this idea? --AFriedman (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

AFriedman, You are reverting my edits in under 5 minutes. You are not giving me the courtesy of any space in which to participate in this article. I do not believe there is even one edit that I have made that you have not reverted. I have probably made a dozen edits, over the past couple of weeks, and I believe every one of them you have reverted. I am only making edits with accompanying sources. You do not own this article.

This is your latest revert of an edit by me. It is sourced information, that is not already in the article. I am trying to improve the article. It seems to me you are acting in a trigger-happy way. You are not allowing me the degree of room in which to demonstrate the vision I might have concerning improving this section of this article. Your "vision" is not the only "vision." Allow me the courtesy of the time space in which to work.

Sourced information deserves a certain status. Wikipedia has a sad reputation of being unreliable. Sourced information matters. Please don't immediately remove subject matter that is very deliberately being placed in the article with an accompanying reliable source.

Please try to control yourself. Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because the information I thought was inaccurate, despite being sourced, is "All food growing in or on the ground are kosher (e.g., vegetables and grains). All food grown from the ground are kosher, for example the fruit of trees." For example, in the Land of Israel, fruit from trees less than 3 years old cannot be eaten. See this information about the subject from a Kosher food certification agency. This site, from an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, describes how produce in the Land of Israel cannot be eaten if it was grown in the Sabbath year (occurring once every seven years). These are examples of situations in which food growing in or on the ground is not kosher, and food grown from the ground is not kosher.

In the past, I have supported many of the changes you made. To name a few, I've kept the reference to "people" instead of "Jews" who observe Kashrut (I noticed that change and thought it was an improvement--did you) and the description of "keeping kosher" as a colloquialism (wasn't in the article until you added it). I even re-wrote the entire Kashrut section on 13 October so it would better accommodate your criticism of the sentence about pork.

I'm not after you in any way. This is not the first time I've reverted edits I thought were inaccurate. On 2 November, I changed my own edits to the introduction as soon as I realized what I'd written about Samaritanism had accuracy issues, and I mentioned this as a reason for the revert. We all screw up sometimes, even when we mean well. --[[User

I have also tried to eplain to him on his talkpage that since his is so obviously ignorant on the subject, he should perhaps better refrain from editing this article. He seems to have taken is personally, alas. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to explain that on my Talk page, Debresser? That I am "obviously ignorant?" How long have you been editing Wikipedia? Do you make a habit of opening dialogue with your fellow Wikipedians by informing them that they are obviously ignorant? Is it my fault that I have taken it "personally, alas?"

Does the concept of "constructive criticism" have any resonance for you? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does. If you were knowledgable in the subject matter, that would have made perfect sense, but as it is, it is a waist of time. Reading the article is more appropriate for you than editing it. And no need to ask how long or how short I have been on Wikipedia, or how I start discussions with users. What is true in this specific case will not be true in other cases. Apart from the fact that this is hardly the first time you have been shown to be unaware of certain aspects of Jewish law on this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I'm not literally asking you how long you have edited Wikipedia. I am expressing surprise at the way you relate to people, specifically me. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand this is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but that does not make it less true. And it surely is for the best of the encyclopedia that its editors should refrain from writing about subjects they do not know well enough. Debresser (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, Wikipedia is based on sources. That is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Thus far in our interactions, which admittedly only span 2 weeks, I have been bringing reliable sources for any contention I have made — you have not. You have been reverting my information without bringing any sources to support anything. That is a fact. Can you show me even one instance in which you have brought even one source?

Please, try to use sources in the future. You may think your authority on a subject is sufficient, but the rest of us would probably prefer to see sources. And that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I think comments like this are inappropriate. Bus stop is making constructive edits to the article, citing reliable sources. The fact that the source may be incomplete or wrong is no reason to criticize Bus stop. Please try to comment on content, not on the contributor. (Easier said than done, I know, but we all have to try anyway.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, all information added to Wikipedia is going to be incomplete (your word). I will be the first to assert that the material that I have added to the kashrut section of the Judaism article has been incomplete. That is the way an article gets written. When I add that "all plants are kosher," that obviously is not the whole story. There are myriad ways in which what started out as a plant with the potential to be kosher, ended up as an unkosher plant, or an unkosher foodstuff. These ideas are developed in successive sentences. Is a cow or a pig kosher? Obviously the cow is the kosher animal. But can a cow result in meat which is not kosher? Obviously it can. We begin by stating those raw products that have the potential to be kosher. We move on to show the ways that kosher status can be maintained or lost. That is how this section of this article should be written. The trouble is any attempt I have made to have any input has been immediately reverted. This, despite the bringing of reliable sources. This despite the obvious fact that Debresser has not made any attempt to bring even one source. I don't accept his authority. And I shouldn't accept his authority. This is Wikipedia. Sources are what matter. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this administrator and left a similar message on Debresser's talk page a little while ago. --AFriedman (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) AFriedman, That information requires separate sentences. All information is not contained in one sentence. The entire Judaism article is not written in one sentence. The Kashrut section of the Judaism article is not written in one sentence. If fruit from trees, in Israel, under 3 years of age, cannot be eaten, that requires a separate sentence. And that separate sentence is not necessarily situated directly below the sentence stating that all fruit from trees are kosher. The human brain naturally integrates information. All things are not necessarily spelled out, or the article would be a gazillion words long. If you wish to tighten up information, please do so. But don't revert, revert, revert. Ditto for produce grown during the seventh year. Ditto for a variety of other instances and circumstances. But if these situations are to be described in this article that description will be taken up in separate sentences. One sentence does not convey all information. It never has, and it probably never will. And to put a fine point on this, the produce is not un-kosher, it is a particular circumstance that renders the produce un-kosher. That may be a conceptual difference. But your reverting over such matters is going overboard. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your call--do you think all the information I put on the Talk page should be added to the article? I think a slightly longer Kashrut section is still acceptable, but as I said, I'm concerned that if we keep adding information about Kashrut, the article would become too long and too overwhelmingly focused on this one little aspect of Judaism. As-is, I think the Kashrut section is a decent and fully referenced overview of the subject, which is an appropriate goal for a section in the main Judaism article. It needn't and shouldn't be complete and that is what more specialized articles are for. --AFriedman (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman was completely correct to revert you, and I have later done the same as well. 1. This is called non-kosher, and 2. details about this are not supposed to cloud this article. There is another article about this subject where this can be dealt with in more detail. Debresser (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, you (and Debresser) are removing an absolutely essential aspect of kashrut. Kashrut is the distinction between that which can be eaten (is kosher) and that which cannot be eaten (is not kosher). It is just as important to describe those categories of foods that are kosher as it is to describe those categories of food that are not kosher. Generally speaking, the produce section of your supermarket is kosher. Can you find anything un-kosher in it? Sure. The prepackaged salads, if they have not been checked for insects, are not kosher, unless it is somehow known for sure that there are no insects in there. Are we talking about a fruit that has already been cut up by the employees of the store? Then it may not be kosher. The knife used to cut that fruit may be problematic. There are a lot of things that can introduce problems. But the point should be gotten across that the basic rule is that plants are all kosher. The planting of different types of seeds side by side within a certain area can render that which is grown there un-kosher. But the general rule is that plants are kosher. The article doesn't even say that vegetation is kosher! That is a glaring oversight. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A few sentences into paragraph 1, the reader would recognize that the term "kashrut" specifically refers to the dietary laws. This is the "essential point" you mentioned. There are so many Kashrut laws, however, that they don't fit into the few little paragraphs we've got. "Many of the laws refer to animal products" essentially says that not as many of them refer to plants. People who read this article should get the idea. --AFriedman (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, if as you say there are "...so many Kashrut laws..." then perhaps as many as feasible should be mentioned. Perhaps the article can do without nonessentials.

Does the reader need to know that "The pig is arguably the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal.?"

Do we need to know that "People who observe these laws are colloquially said to be "keeping kosher."?

Should we be tossing around the terms "treif" and "treifah" without even defining, and translating it? This is the English Wikipedia, and "treif" is hardly standard English.

Do we even need to go into the blah blah blah of "Concerning birds, a list of non-kosher species is given in the Torah. The exact translations of many of the species have not survived, and some non-kosher birds' identities are no longer certain. However, traditions exist about the kashrut status of a few birds. For example, both chickens and turkeys are permitted in most communities."?

And this blah blah blah: "Based on the Biblical injunction against cooking a kid in its mother's milk, this rule is mostly derived from the Oral Torah, the Talmud and Rabbinic law."

Before even stating the essential outline of what kashrut is, the article is already addressing the virtually intractable differing points of view involving "the Oral Torah," the "Talmud," and "Rabinnic law." Isn't that the sort of stuff that would be better taken up in the more expanded article on kashrut?

By the way, is Conservative Judaism "modernist?" From where do you derive that?

As a general criticism, the kashrut section is bogged down in minutia and lacking in a general outline.

The above comments are all only addressed to the "Kashrut" section of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reader needs to know some of the basic terminology about Kosher foods, including "keeping kosher" and "treif" (the latter is commonly used in English sentences and is in the Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus). "Treif" is defined in the article. The idea of adding the colloquialism part to the "keeping kosher" sentence was yours. The pig sentence is important because pigs, as per the citation, are a quintessential symbol of the non-kosher animal. Many Jews who do not follow the other dietary laws refrain from eating pork. The birds, mammals and seafood sentences each discuss important categories of Kashrut, and the rules about birds present a distinctive problem with a noteworthy solution.

The rules about meat + milk are not accepted by all branches of Judaism, although they are accepted by most. See this site, representative of one strain of Reform Jewish thought that has converged in many respects with Karaite Judaism. The paragraph about the topic tries to make this point clear by discussing which branches follow the meat + milk rules and why. The links to Oral Torah, Talmud and Rabbinic law are intended to give people access to more information about the Rabbinic theology, but as per the limitations of a main topic article do not discuss the exact rationale for the laws.

An outline of Kashrut is given in the first few sentences--that the laws of Kashrut are the dietary laws. In the next few paragraphs, some of them are enumerated, and the later part of the section focuses on Kashrut's rationale. Why is this a problem for you? --AFriedman (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, it is a problem because you and Debresser are not permitting me to edit. You and Debresser have reverted every edit I've made to the kashrus section, sometimes within 5 minutes. You and Debresser have reverted sourced material. It is not your article. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By this point, based on some of your previous posts, I think you understand the accuracy issues that prompted the reverts. --AFriedman (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, What are you referring to? What "accuracy issues" do you have in mind? Based on my "previous posts?"

Which "previous posts" do you have in mind? I don't know what you are referring to. Could you be a bit more explicit? Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 10, you wrote: "Plant-based foods are rendered not kosher, of course, by kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods. Indeed, under some circumstances, even plant-based foods can be not kosher." This was our argument about why the speedily reverted sentences did not belong in the article. --AFriedman (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, Any food can be not kosher. A food that starts out kosher, can become not kosher. All plants are kosher. Even a kosher animal is not kosher if certain circumstances transpire. How do you distinguish, for the purpose of the subject under discussion, between a camel and a goat? One is not considered a kosher animal; the other is considered a kosher animal. But the animal that is considered a kosher animal can become unkosher under a variety of circumstances. Similarly, all plants are kosher. That means rhubarb is kosher, apples are kosher, wheat is kosher, and grapes are kosher. But can any of these plants become unkosher foods? Of course they can. What are you quibbling over? Is it impossible to convey this in an article? You and Debresser have been reverting my attempts to put the most basic information into the article. Kashrut is not only about what is prohibited, but about what is permitted. The entire plant kingdom is permitted, and yet you and Debresser have been reverting my every attempt to put that simple edit in the article.

Sometimes you two folks have been reverting me in under five minutes elapsed time after making an edit. There has been no way for me to proceed because you two have been acting as the gatekeepers for this article, at least for the kashrut section (which is the only section of this article that I have tried to edit), at least for the past two weeks.

You and Debresser have been doing this with other types of information that I have been trying to put into the kashrus section of this article as well. I have brought well-sourced information, which you both have reverted. The reason that you have given is that the information was incorrect. WP:VERIFY says that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You both have set yourselves up as authorities on factuality. You have rejected well-sourced information. You have not brought sources to support your contention that my material was incorrect. And you two are merely a consensus of two. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps AFriedman and I have reverted part (stress the word "part") of your edits because they were incorrect or didn't fit in the way the kashrut section is set up, or any good reason? Did you consider such a possibility? And did you consider the possibility that you don't understand or agree with the arguments that were brought forth against your edits, not because such arguments were absent or incorrect, but because you seem institutionally incapable of understanding other points of view, in spite of stating the opposite? Just consider such a scenario... Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Debresser, "incorrect" requires a source. Who said that the material I added to an article was incorrect — you did? You must bring sources. AFriedman must bring sources. The authority of both of you is not enough. Just as I am required to bring sources, so too are you two required to bring sources.

Furthermore — it is not necessarily unacceptable for sources and the material they support to contradict one another. An article can legitimately contain contradictory information. The article, under those circumstances, should acknowledge the divergence of opinions on the point of contention, in order that it not look like a mistake, but it is certainly possible to find language to convey the existence of notions that definitely do not agree with one another. But of course as in all information added, all material must be supported by reliable sources.

But I don't think that was even the case. You and AFriedman were simply reverting. I never got to sentence number two. I literally was in the edit window, when I noticed that my previous edit was not there any more! There was no way to proceed. You and AFriedman have acted in the capacity of the unofficial gatekeepers. Furthermore, it is uncomfortable to operate in a hostile atmosphere. Not only were you two reverting my edits, but you, Debresser, were clearly, explicitly asking me to go away and leave the article alone. That is why this has spilled over into this space, with all these recriminations. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about hurting your feelings. But please, I do not "simply revert". Ever. I always prefer to leave even a dubious edit, unless I consider it to be unequivocally incorrect. I edit many articles, most of them while fixing various error categories as a Wikignome, and I have to adhere to stringent standards to avoid making wrong edits in unfamiliar articles. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism versus Jews

I made some edits to the heading. What needs to be clear is the distinction between Judaism and Jews. Obviously, Jews refers to people. There is some division over what "Judaism" refers to. In the early 1800s Napolean convened a "Sanhedrin" in France, which decided that Judaism would be a religion. This is an approach that many other Jews in Europe took, in the post-Enlightenment period. But the concept of "religion" did not exist in Judaism before this time, and many Jews today do not consider Judaism a religion (for example, Europeans distinguish between religious and secular law, but the Talmud contains examples of both - clearly what would be called secular law in the Talmud is as much a part of "Judaism" as the religious laws). I have no desire to eliminate fom this article any mention of religion, but if by Judaism we are referring to the beliefs and practices that all Jews today identify with their covenant with God that has its origins thousands of years ago, it is an anachronistic over-simplification to call Judaism a "religion." It is, but it is other things as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is primarily a religion. More than anything else Judaism is a religion. I have no source at the moment to bring for that, and I'm sure sources can be found that contradict one another in addressing the question that you are raising. But I also have doubts that there is even a question there. Judaism, if it is a religion, allows for non-practice. That being the case, what practical distinction is there between the religious individual and the irreligious individual, as concerns their practice of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion. I have changed it back to what the consensus was (see discussion above). Please don't switch it back. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going against consensus. [2] edit broke with consensus, and I simply restored the consensus version. Now you wish to break with consensus again. You are pushing one point of view. Let us leave the opening neutral, as it was before someone broke consensus a couple of days ago, and leave a discussion for later. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Slrubenstein but I also understand the discussion above to mean that your edit is against the consensus. Perhaps you got mixed up with all the edits of late. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, Debresser, show me which part of the discussion above shows that my edit is against consensus. I realize A Sniper, who is apparently part of Navnløs's tag team, claims I am editing against consensus. But Debresser, shouldn't one provide evidence? Why don't you actualy investigate the facts before supporting these POV pushers? All I did was revert an edit that changed the consensus version. How, pleas tell me, did Navnløs's edit which 'changed how the text read and had read for quite a long time suddelnly without any discussion at all become the "consensus" version? I am sorry, but changing a stable text without discussion does not create "consensus." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that A Sniper called consensus prematurely. Please don't make a statement like "A Sniper...is part of Navnløs' tag team" unless it is relevant, and without backing it up. However, you may want to read the arguments in the earlier section "Intro on Judaism" on this page, which I also found convincing. Judaism allows for non-practice, but so, in principle, does Islam. For example, some people consider Barack Obama to be a Muslim because his father was, just like some people consider Madeleine Albright to be Jewish because her mother was. --AFriedman (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be. But you actually made a mistake when claiming to revert to the consensus version. The disambiguation hatnote you used was not the consensus one. See also my reply to your post on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If user Slrubinstein would have gone up two conversations, then perhaps the revert wouldn't have been so, uh, wrong. And saying I'm part of a 'tag team' is a weak defence for a lame revert. As has already been demonstrated, using the word religion can apply to any denomination of Judaism, including those without set doctrine or rituals. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I regret using the term tag team. The reason I did not "go up two conversations" is that Blizzard posted all of that after I made my restoration to the consensus version. And the fact remains that it is only after the Haskalah that it became common in Europe for people to think of Judaism as a religion; before the Haskalah it was not a religion as such; and there are many Jews today who do not consider it a religion. NPOV has to allow for BOTH points of view.

I accept both views. I accept your view, that for some people it is a religion. Why is it so hard for you to accept the views of people who do not agree with you? Wikipedia is NOT a place to impose ONE point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Then why is it you so stubbornly edit war with people who revert your edits, despite the fact that your edits deviate from the consensus version of many months? Not to mention that this is not the first time I have seen you do this... Debresser (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

For over six months, the lead to this article described Judaism as a set of "beliefs and practices." On November 9, without any discussion on the talk page, Navnlos changed this to "religion." I do not believe that we should break with a stable consensus wording without full discussion. I reverted Navnlos's edit. I thought that this would be non-controversial (Navnlos was bold, I reverted - it was up to her to discuss I thought) but Navnlos did not ike my restoration of the consensus version. I am sure we can at least all agree that the matter should be discussed. I have tried to bring forward my reasons, above. Perhaps that did not satisfy everyone, so I will try again.

By the way, thee is NO question that there is a difference between Judaism and Jews. We have a separate article on Jews, and I have no argument with that. The question is, how best to introduce the one article we have on Judaism.

There are a few reasons I think that iInstead of calling Judaism a religion it makes more sense to identify it as sets of beliefs and practices. This is more accurate and consistent with the reliable sources. In 1806 Napolean negotiated with Jewish leaders that the Jews would be accepted as citizens of France if they accepted Judaism as a religion with no claims to national autonomy (in the middle ages, many Jewish communities had a great deal of self-rule, under the protection of various princes, dukes, etc). Following the Enlightenment (haskalah) there was a major change in the way Jews lived, as well as their legal and cultural status in Europe, and one consequence of this was to think of Judaism as a religion.

As Debresser correctly points out in a discussion a couple of sections above, the view that Judaism is a religion is not shared by all Jews. It was not viewed by jews as a religion in the middle ages. The Talmud for example combines religious laws with secular laws. Those secular laws (e.g. tort law) are as much a part of Judaism as kashrus and shabbos.

The view that Judaism is a religion must be included in this article. But other views must be included as well. Some view judaism as a religious civilization. Some view it as a culture.

It is a mistake to refer to the article on "Jews" as an article on Jewish culture, because Jdaism is an essential part of Jewish culture. This is not just my personal feeling, there is a host of sources, reliable sources, that say that Judaism is a part of Jewish culture. Whoever wrote the line that the article on Jews is about Jewish culture, and that this article is not about Jewish culture, was I am sure well-intentioned and made an honest mistake. There is nothing wrong with fixing it thruogh a minor change. No one doubts that the article on Jews is an article on people. Why would saying so be controversial?

The key thing is that multiple reliable sources make different claims about what "Judaism" is, and this article has to be inclusive. no one should deny that one view of Judaism is that it is a religion. But no one should deny that it is other things to other people. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So you say that you made a change to this article, and that you feel certain that that was The Right Thing To Do. Well, I and others disagree, so your initiative was reverted. WP:BRD is relevant. Do not continue edit warring about your non-consensus edits. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Currently the lead is more or less what the consensus has been for many months. Let us deal with things one at a time. I will not edit the disambiguation but I will make a point: disambiguations ought to follow the lead of the articles. Articles should not be rewritten to fit the disambiguation statement. My reasoning is this: the articles are written before the disambiguation explanations are written. I think a good deal of thought and discussion goes into the editing of articles, I think that relatively little thought goes into the disambiguation phrases. usually it is just some editor adding it to be helpful to readers. I do not know who wrote the disambiguation sentence for this article, but I want to be cleear: I am sure it was written in good faith. I only suggest that it was probably written quickly and without much discussion or consideration. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My objections in the discussion above notwithstanding (about the fact that for many their Judaism is more than or even something totally different from a religion), I think there is no doubt that this article is about the religious aspects of Judaism only. I say so based on the contents. The article Jew on the other hand has well developed culture and history sections. So I think the consensus hatnote is correct. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you and I use "culture" differently. To me, the Talmud and the Midrash are important parts of Jewish culture, and many parts of the Talmud and the Midrash, while central to Judaism, are not about religion as such. And the place to expand on these is in this article, not in the article on Jews. The "cultural" stuff discussed in the article on Jews is generally variations in dress and diet and other things that are the result of Jews adapting to life in different societies because of the galus. But there are other things that are central to Jewish culture regardless of where Jews live, and these things are mentioned in this article and if there should be any expansion of them, they belong here. I agree that people especially recently have put more energy into developing the "religious" aspects of Judaism (I think it is stil problematic that before the haskalah Jews may not have considered these things "religious") in this article, but that only means other parts should be developed in this article, as Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have said that my view - that Judaism can refer to a religion but can also refer to other things, or, put somewhat differently, that Judaism cannot be defined only as a religion - has reliable sources. I'll provide three.

• Mordecai Kaplan 1934 Judaism as a Civilization JPS:

To begin with, we have to analyze the very notion of difference To be different may mean to be both other and unlike, or to be other only. Otherness is difference in entity, unlikeness is difference in quality. Unlikelness presupposes otherness, but otherness is compatible with either likeness or unlikeness. Otherness may therefore be considered primary, and unlikeness only secondary. hence, when Jewish life is endangered and we try to conserve it, we necessarily try to conserve that which differentiates it from non-Jewish life. but here a fallicy insinuates itself. We make the mistake of believing that what we chiefly try to conserve is that wherein Jewish life is unlike non-Jewish life, or what may be termed as differential. We concentrate on the religious aspect of Jewish life, because it is that aspect which is most conspicuously most unlike, and because we assume it to be the least troublesom to justify. But the truth of the matter is that what is at stake in our day is the very maintenance of Jewish life as a distinct society entity. Its very otherness is in jeopardy. .... The Jew's religion is but one element in his life that is challenged by the present environment. it is a mistake, therefore, to conceive the task of conserving jewish life as essentially a task of saving the Jew's religion .... the task before the Jew is to save the otherness of Jewish life; the element of unlikeness will take care of itself .... Judaism as otherness is thus something far more comprehensive than Jewish religion. it contains the nexus of a history, literature, language, social organization, folk sanctions, standards of conduct, social and spiritual ideals, esthetic values, which in their totality form a civilization. 177-178

• Joseph B. Soloveitchik 1983 [1944] Halakhic Man JPS:

Halakhic man reflects two opposing selves; two disparate images are embodied within his soul and spirit. On the one hand he is as far removed from homo religiosus as east is from west and identical, in many respects, to prosaic, cognitive man; on the other hand he is a man of God, possessor of an ontological approach that is devoted to God and of a wold view saturated with the radiance of the Divine Presense. For this reason it is difficult to analyze halakhic man's religious conscousness by applying the terms and traits that descriptive psychology and modern philosophy of religion have used to characterize the religious personality ... The image that halakhic man presents is singular, even strange. he is of a type that is unfamiliar to students of religion . (3)

• Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties University of California Press.

But Ioudaismos, the ancestor of our English word Judaism, means more than just religion. (7-8)

"...in this first ocurence of the term, Ioudaismos has not yet be reduced to designation of a religion. It means rather "the aggregate of all those characteristics that makes Judaeans Judaean (or Jews Jewish)." Among thse charactertistics, to be sure, are practices and beliefs that we would today call "religious" but these practices and beliefs are not the sole content of the term. (105-106)

I am not arguing that "Judaism never means a religion" or that "No one thinks of Judaism as a religion." If you believe these things you do not have to provide me with proof, I believe you. It is only if you assert that "Judaism" is used by all people to refer only to a religion that i would ask you for reliable sources to support that. As for me, I am only arguing that in the past Judaism has meant other things besides religion; that some Jews view Judaism in terms other than religion; and that even Jews who care deeply about God have some trouble with the "fit" between the Western concept "religion" and "Judaism."

Other users, - Debresser and AFreidman (with whom I have not always agreed) share my uncertainties about changing the consensus version of "beliefs and practices" to "religion. So I hope we will have a full discussion before any further attempts to change the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 01:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:OR aside, Blizzard Beast made an edit, there was discussion, it was not reverted - and then you came along. The word religion formats the article in line with the other world religions. If you have a problem with this and want to reach WP:3RR, go grab an admin. A Sniper (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Where have I violated NOR?

Also, I do not see the timeline you refer to. Navnlos made an edit. She did so with no discussion on this talk page. Then I came along. Please show me the discussion of Navanlos's edit before I came along, because I do not see it. What I see is Navanlos changing the consensus version with no explanation, my reverting to the consensus version, and my providing an explanation. Now, why are you so unwilling to have a discussion? sn't BRD "Bold edit - navanlos's change from consensus - Revert - what I did - and then discussion? Why do you not want to discuss this? Why the insitance on changing the consensus version as it was two days ago, without any discussion? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein. The idea that Judaism is merely a religion was a Napoleonic innovation (one of the results of the Grand Sanhedrin). As Slrubenstein's sources indicate, rabbis from both the traditional (Soloveitchik) and progressive movements (Kaplan) view Judaism as more than a religion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Both sides of the argument have merit, and I'm inclined to have it both ways. Judaism, unlike the other major world religions, has so many elements that are disassociated from religious practice that the concept of "atheist Jew" isn't laughable (disclaimer: I personally categorize myself as such, but I'd like to think I'm avoiding bias). When members of other religions turn from their deity of choice (assuming one exists), they are either no longer of that religion (e.g. most Protestant denominations) or they're referred to in a way that indicates a clear disassociation from the faith, e.g. "lapsed Catholic". Without the ritual of deity worship, there is little left to tie them to the religion. Yes, I recognize that disagreements over "Jewishness" are part and parcel, but a minority of significant size accepts that Judaism and God are separable. At least one Orthodox Rabbi goes so far as to claim that nothing matters but your birth to a Jewish woman; nothing else is necessary [3] (See the 7th paragraph from the end). I personally disagree with this opinion, but it shows the breadth of opinion even within Orthodox communities, and clearly indicates there is something odd we have to address. Indicating that it is viewed as a religion is a good idea (I think we would be remiss if we ignored the obvious public perception), but the fact that the religious elements are separable leads to the inevitable conclusion that we can't classify it solely as a religion. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view: We had a very similar and lengthy discussion for Hinduism, which you can read here. Eventually we resolved the issue by surveying the terminology used by other tertiary sources in their lede sentences and decided to use "religious tradition" in the first sentence, with a footnote mentioning the other common variants. I am not suggesting that Judaism adopt the same words; but a similar process to resolve the debate could be useful. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Note I have protected the page from further editing for a week, to prevent continued edit-warring over the wording of the lead sentences. Discuss the issue here and reach consensus before making any further changes to the article, and use dispute resolution if you need further input. If all involved editors can voluntarily commit to not making any further changes to the lede till clear consensus is reached, I'd prefer to unprotect the article early, so that non-controversial improvements to the other parts of the article can continue. I'll watchlist this page, although I will not be participating in the content discussion itself. Abecedare (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: a post has been put up about this subject on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Judaism:_not_just_a_religion, but since it does not link directly here I shall add that link there, as well as this notification here. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I will accept either version of the lead at this point. --AFriedman (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is just a religion. Can we stop all this psychobabble for a mere microsecond? Of course Judaism is a separate religion from other religions. Of course it is different from any religion you compare it to. Each religion exists because it is distinct — in some way. That doesn't make it (Judaism) not a religion. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, please don't create a straw man. Nobody has said that Judaism isn't a religion.

Can you find a WP:RS that says it's "just a religion"? Slrubenstein has presented 3 that say the opposite, that Judaism is more than "just a religion". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw man is a straw man. The push is to create a new category for Judaism. I maintain that the old category needs absolutely no adjustments. Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, what does "more than just a religion" mean? Is "more" an additive or subtractive thing? I don't even know what more than just a religion means. Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, why don't you read the preceding section if you don't understand what we're talking about? (And why are you in the deep end of the pool if you don't understand the issue at hand?) Also, you say you want to keep "the old category". This has nothing to do with categories. It has to do with the language in the lede, and it's about restoring the old language, not creating new language.

A Sniper, for 11 months the article has said that Judaism "is a set of beliefs and practices". (Note: the text was added by Slrubenstein.) It doesn't matter whether the lede of this article is consistent with the ledes of Islam and Christianity if making it consistent makes it wrong.

In the end, this is about what reliable sources say. Have you got any sources to support the edit that Judaism is solely a religion, that it doesn't encompass a set of practices? For more than 2000 years, and still today according to some rabbis, Judaism has been about acts, not beliefs. (See Jewish principles of faith: "Judaism stresses performance of deeds or commandments rather than adherence to a belief system.") — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the only time I've ever had occasion to disagre with you Malik. But for what it is worth, in the sociology of religion, the word 'religion' refers intrinsically to both 'beliefs and practices'. To argue that religion refers to belief, and can exclude the notion of 'practices' is therefore rather vagrant, since classically, the concept is defined as embracing both.

'Une religion est un système solidaire de croyances et de pratiques relatives à des choses sacrées, . . croyances et pratiques qui unissent en une même communauté morale, appelée Église, tous ceux qui y adhèrent.' Émile Durkheim, Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse,5th ed.Presses universitaires de France, Paris 1968 p.65

(A religion is an interdependent system of beliefs and practices regarding sacred things, . . beliefs and practices that join into one moral community, called a Church, all those who adhere to them.’)

I hope one is not lead astray by 'Church'. He is speaking of all religions, from those of the aborigines, to Buddhists, to Jews, Muslims and Christians, as is clear from the text elsewhere.

To require secondary sources for the idea that Judaism is 'solely a religion' is therefore begging the question, I'm afraid, since 'solely a religion' is being used in a very modern way, one that assumes religions are matters of belief and not also of practice, when historically they contain both. To the outsider, inded, the whole argument sounds like an attempt to define Judaism in terms of its uniqueness above all. As Neusner (cited on the Reliable Sources page) argues, Judaism is, first and foremost, a 'religion', like Islam and like Christianity. One defines everything first in terms of the genus (religion, here). One then elaborates differences. One does not, in humanistic and scientific methodology, define things in their uniqueness, only then to elaborate on their generic, shared attributes. That Judaism differs from other religions is true, as it is true that all other religions differ from each other. That it is quintessentially different from other religions is meaningless. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated twice already above that although I agree that these two versions are basically the same, I actually prefer the version we had there for the last few months. I does not hurt to describe what precisely is meant by "religion". Also, the words "beliefs and practises" include more than the word "religion", and in the case of Judaism that is relevant. This is true even though the article's subject is the religion aspect of Judaism, and I see no need to substract from this sentence's impact only because of that.

I'd also like to note that I deplore the agressive editing of Slrubenstein, which in my view has been the major factor in escalating this subject into an edit war and resulting in the full protection of Judaism. At the same time I'd like to note that A Sniper has also been a little overzealous in preserving a version based on such recent discussion in which support was by no means unanymous. I know it is not nice to point at people, but I do so in the hope that they will change their ways, because it is no fun editing with such aggressive editors around. Debresser (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I did not intend for my editing to be overly-zealous. I saw an editor, who had not played a major role in working on this article, make a small but meaningful change to the article. I interpreted this as a bold edit, which I assumed was in good faith, but a mistake. I reverted because I thought my reasoning (including maintaining wording that had consensus support for many months) was obvious and that if this editor really thought the change were important, she'd bring it to the talk page (WP:BDR). When she didn't, I used edit summaries to explain why I was supporting the original wording. I do regret that this has been viewed as overly zealous. What is important is that we are now having the discussion we should have prior to any such change. My position is very simple: I do not object to using the word "religion" or "religious" in the article, even in the lead. My only objection is making a flat and simple, definitive equation, Judaism = religion. It did not always (and if we are to say Judaism = religion, the contents of this article would have to restrict itself, as Malik Shabbaz has pointed out, to just the past two centuries) and even now, it does not to all. For one entire modern movement of Judaism, Judaism is not a religion, it is "the entire cultural legacy of the Jewish people"[4] (granted, within this legacy religion is crucial). I know not all Jewish authorities agree with that definition of Judaism. But Reconstructionists are not the only Jews who reject the equation, Judiasm is a religion:

• [5]
• [6].
• Gilbert Rosenthal 1974 Four Paths to one God Bloch Publishing Company

What is Judaism? Is it a religion? An ethnic entity? a culture? a civilization? Conservative Judaism has a good deal to say about this .... While Schechter conceded that a definition of Judaism is no less perplexing than a definition of God, he sharply criticized the effor of Geiger and the Reformers to reduce Judaism to the status of merely a religious sect,stripped of all national content. (172)

Emmanual Rackman prefers to define Judaism as "a legal order rather than a religion or faith" (56)

But even if these sources did not represent all Jewish views, that is not the point. NPOV demands we include all significant views in an article, and the lead should be inclusive of all significant views.

Bus Stop has apparently strong objections, and I just do not understand them. Without meaning to sound defensive, if I have been overly zealous in editing, one reason is that (1) those people suggesting that Judaism = a religion ... that it is only this, or precisely this for all Jews ... have not provided any sources and seem not to know of the sources I was well-familiar with. (2) Indeed, even after I have presented my sources in detail, Bus Stop seems insistant that we use the word religion. I have to admit this makes me feel very anxious. Shouldn't encyclopedia articles be based on research? Shouldn't research look at significant sources? Isn't Shaye Cohen one of the most notable historians of 2nd Temple Judaism? Wasn't Rabbi Soloveitchik one of the most important, influential, and beloved Orthodox rabbis of the 20th century? Wasn't Rabbi Kaplan also a significant Jewish philosopher of the 20th century? Shouldn't my providing these sources mean anything to the discussion? What sources does Bus Stop have that state that Judaism = a religion; that prior to the Haskalah and Napolean Jews viewed it as a religion ... or even, prior to Roman times Jews viewed it as a religion; that all significant views of Judaism today equate it with a religion?

I take Debresser's comment to suggest that my editing has been devisive or counter-productive. I am happing to move aside now as he and Malik, both of whom -if I may put it this way - have done a considerable amount of research into Judaism. I'd be glad if they said ore about why they prefer the consensus wording over Judaism is a religion, and if they could respond to the concerns or questions of Bus Stop or others who would change the lead. I just want to see discussion over a change in the lead to be based on reliable sources about Judaism, and not made because of a cookie-cutter approach that insists on equating Judaism with Christianity and Islam as "religions." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note my small comment at [7] wherein I suggest that there is a real basis for saying Judaism is not "just a religion." Collect (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - I find it strange that the lead does not include a statement that Judaism is a religion. I fully agree that it is more complex than this, and I support more detailed explanation, but as this is an encyclopedia, the lead should include a very clear and simple explanation of what the subject is. If a reader comes here knowing nothing about Judaism, the lead needs to state that it is a religion - at the moment, that is not clear at all. I'm not an expert on what the balance of reliable sources say on this, but it would obviously be easy to find sources that confirm Judaism is a religion - there is no point objecting to the initial change on the grounds of original research. --hippo43 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Evangelicals will argue that Christianity is not a religion; it is a faith. And now Jews are arguing that Judaism isn't a relgion; it is a... set of beliefs and practices. Folks, these "we're not just a" set of self definitions are cookie cutter behavior for religions. That said, I don't object to Slrubenstein's "beliefs and practices" for the simple reason that they don't fool anyone. Wikipedia isn't supposed to repeat self-delusions, but it is certainly allowed to do so when they don't mislead the reader. In this case, only the editor is misled, and simple English readers will understand "beliefs and practices" to mean "religion." This is therefore a non-issue and not worth all the time and effort involved. Let Sl have his wording, please, and move on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sl happens to be right. He isn't misled or deluded. Judaism has aspects of religion, race, tribe, legal system, culture, nationality... but it is none of those things in specific. Your comparison fails, Tim, because religion and faith are more or less synonymous. I thought one of the key ideas on Wikipedia was that groups get to self-define. That's why, for example, "Messianic Judaism" is called that here. Because despite the misuse of the word "Judaism" in their self-identification, Wikipedia isn't here to judge the truth of it. Judaism does not view itself as a mere religion, so Wikipedia shouldn't say otherwise. -Lisa (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be a 'mere religion', but it is, among other things, a 'religion', according to plenty of reliable sources. My understanding is that one of the key ideas on wikipedia is verifiability. --hippo43 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I noticed the posting on the OR/N. I agree that practically speaking this conversation is a non-issue since no one is confused about the fact that Judaism is just as much a religion as any other tradition so categorized. On principle, however, the matter is not that simple and one has to wonder about the precedent something like this sets (particularly given the fact that much stronger arguments could be made for other traditions like Hinduism or Buddhism). We also have to consider the fact that the rationale being offered does not jive with our most basic rules governing notability and verification. 99.9% of sources about Judaism will refer to it as a religion first and foremost, no matter what else they state about Judaism and this is particularly true for large reference works. Part of the problem here is that Judaism is by no means the special case people are making the tradition out to be and I note a particularly belief centered (Protestant) version of religion being insinuated into a straw man in order to make that case. "Religion" is a particularly dubious and slippery category, but it can encompass everything discussed in this entry. Again, I'm not worried that most readers will come here and get confused about Judaism not being a religion, but I think the current version is less clear than it should be, and the only rationale I have heard to make it less informative is a dubious argument about the exceptional nature of what this tradition encompasses. All living religious traditions have exceptional qualities ... and that is exactly why scholars have wrestled with definitions for centuries ... but it's an all or nothing proposition. Either no religious tradition should be called a religion (or arguably following the straw man of "religion" being presented only very small sects of Protestant Christianity) or they all should. Of course in the end we leave this determination to reliable sources, and doing so would support changing the entry back to conform to those of other major world religions.PelleSmith (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It says clearly in the beginning of the second paragraph of the lede "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions" etc. So religion is there. I'd have no problem with it if the word "religion" were somehow incorporated in the first paragraph as well. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, only the true-believers internal to a paradigm will fail to notice that "faith" is synonymous with "religion" (for Evangelicals) or that "beliefs and practices" is also synonymous with "religion." Let people have their synonyms and self-stated definitions as long as they don't confuse a normal English reader. BTW, Evangelicals seem to regard "religion" pejoratively to mean "beliefs AND PRACTICES" while they believe in belief alone (i.e. "faith"). It seems here that Slrubenstein (and Lisa) regard "religion" to be simply "belief." Fine. Normal readers don't care about such nuances, and while they would be interesting to note in the article, no true-believers would tolerate its inclusion. Please let Slrubenstein (and Lisa) have their preferred wording, because it does not mislead anyone -- everyone ELSE knows that beliefs and practices means "religion." The article was just fine with Slrubenstein's wording. This argument is completely unnecessary.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS -- I don't know of ANY religion that claims to be "just a religion." Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and requires wording that is appropriate for all points of view. That means, not insulting to those internal to a religion and not confusing to those who are not. Slrubenstein and Lisa (and myself) should stand as evidence that "beliefs and practices" are not insulting to Jews. Is there any non-Jew here who REALLY thinks that "beliefs and practices" will confuse anyone?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this thread reflects, as you note, the differences underlying sectarian viewepoints or rather, people raised in different religious milieux, regarding the word 'religion'. SlRubenstein, with his background in anthropology, should be the first to recognize this. In coming to wikipedia we are asked to put aside, or rather familiarize ourselves with perspectives that are a world apart from our own, esp. in articles where our own culture is written about, precisely to avoid systemic bias, or to avoid violating WP:NPOV. I don't think it helpful therefore to ask that one preferred wording prevail because those who argue for it regard 'religion' as meaning simply 'belief', when both the OED and the classics of the sociology of religion define 'religion' as a matter of belief and practice. The assertion that religion is to be qualified as 'beliefs and practices' looks tautological to many users like myself. However Pauline a reading some Christians may give their own faith, it remains written in the epistles attached to the New Testament, and is therefore a canonical view in Christianity itself, that '‘faith, if it hath not works, is dead’ (James 2:17). If we are to believe Robert Eisenman, James opinion was that of Jesus, his brother, and had a profound impact on Islamic concepts of jihad. The doctrine was Judaic, passed into Christianity, and was refracted in Islam.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Religions don't claim anything, people do. What should concern us here are what mainstream scholars claim and not adherent (or non-adherent) editors. The mainstream approach, in both scholarship and in mass culture, would be to simply call Judaism a religion, again, whether or not nuances are introduced in more detail later. Your questions are backwards if you ask me. Given what is mainstream you should ask if calling Judaism a religion is insulting to Jews. That would pose an legitimate reason to consider a different wording.PelleSmith (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Judaism is a religion. And calling it a religion isn't insulting. However, there is a tendency for religions to not want to be called a religion, because they do not want to be part of any class. Every religion wants to be unique, and stresses the unique even to the point of denying the general. NEVERTHELESS, Slrubenstein's denial is simply a synonym and doesn't fool anyone. Tell me, Pelle, with a straight face, are you REALLY fooled that "beliefs and practices" isn't a "religion"?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem we should all essay to avoid is inquring whether calling Judaism a religion is insulting to Jews. PelleSmith's question is rhetorical. Jews will differ according to individual or sectarian perspective on this, as, like all sane communities, everything else. I vaguely recall Rabbi Yisrael Rosen saying that Reform Judaism isn't 'our religion', meaning Orthodox Judaism, and suggesting that those who follow it be recognized in Israel as subscribing to another faith or creed or religion. The fundamental error in all these arguments is that of trying to make definitions 'inclusive'. Once you go beyond a primary definition, with its simple generic terms of classification, you spoil the lead with complications that should be reserved for the main text.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone who's native language isn't English and/or someone who is young and developing his/her language skills in their native English tongue may very well be confused. The issue here is not over definition as much as classification and comparison. All religions may have beliefs and practices but all beliefs and practices are not considered religious. Not using a term that is commonly used to classify this tradition is in fact a detriment. As I said before, I don't think this is a particularly problematic example, but it is certainly a slippery slope and there appears to be no good reason to throw linguistic conventions out the window here since you admit yourself that Jews are not offended by the term "religion". I don't think we should start down a slippery slope simply because Slr would prefer it. Like Nishidani I'm also slightly confused by Slr's particular insistence on this given his scholarly background, but oh well.PelleSmith (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are Jewish, and an atheist, and a gourmand, could Judaism be considered a culinary category? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, please don't just troll. It's petty. You know full well that's an invalid argument. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not trolling. That is a point. That is an example of what this is all about. At the core, Judaism is a religion. As one departs from the core definition, other possibilities emerge, including the completely absurd and tongue in cheek example that I made up, above. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a textbook case of the bare assertion fallacy (by assuming Judaism is, at its core, a religion, you ignore the numerous examples provided by others that that is not the case). Add to that the combined slippery slope fallacy and a modified false analogy fallacy. If the religious aspects of Judaism encouraged or discouraged gourmet eating, you'd have a point, but they don't. They do encourage a belief in God, heck, it's a central tenet of the faith, yet without participating in the religious elements you can still be a secular Jew. The point is that being a gourmand does not reject the religious teachings (unless you go around eating bacon wrapped shrimp on Yom Kippur, but that's an indirect violation in any event). Atheism does, but unlike many other faiths (Christianity, Islam), it's not a disqualifying characteristic. If Hinduism has the same characteristics, then I'd support a similarly hedging on the Hinduism page, but my experience and knowledge of religion is mostly confined to Abrahamic religions. As a note, I don't particularly care which phrase is used. I'm just arguing for the legitimacy of both viewpoints (and I think a compromise phrasing would be in order, just to end this). --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "religious beliefs and practices." Sounds like that perfect kind of compromise that makes neither side happy :-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I only made up an analogy. That you can find inconsistencies in my analogy is to be expected with analogies in general. As far as a phrase used, I don't think a phrase should be used in any area that restricts a full exploration of Jewish identity. That would rule out an expression at the top of the article such as,

"This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity…"

That in my opinion is improper. It perpetuates inbuilt assumptions that may or may not reflect reality. I would only find acceptable at the top of the article something like,

"Also see article entitled, Jew."

Within the lede there is a little more room for exploration. Here language should be kept vague, centering around "religion," with immediate reference to section or sections below going into questions of Jewish identity in greater depth.

The thing is, not all issues are easily addressed. It is an error to think that all material should be available in a condensed form. "Info-boxes" (not related to this article) are often very problematic because of this. One should recognize when one can't adequately address something in the limited space available. Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ShadowRanger. You write:'They do encourage a belief in God, heck, it's a central tenet of the faith, yet without participating in the religious elements you can still be a secular Jew.'

Your fallacy is that of confusing the normal use of Judaism, with the normal use of Jew(ish people). There are numerous scholarly sources that will tell you that Judaism, a religion, is not commensurate with, the history of the Jews. From Jacob Neusner to Ariel Toaff. This argument is about keeping one's categories neat and tidy, and not conflating things language use and the general trend of scholarship distinguishes. There is much more to the history of the Jews than what is encompassed by Judaism, understood as the religion of the Jews. SLSubenstein's mistake is to say that because Jews also had an extra-religious dimension, Judaism must encompass it, and therefore Judaism is a larger category than is allowed by the word understood, as it almost invariably is, by Jews and goys, in a strictly religious sense. Israel Shahak was a secular Jew, and had little use for Judaism. Theodor Adorno was a secular Jew, as was Ludwig Wittgenstein, Theodor Herzl, Karl Kraus and Eric Hobsbawm. None of the last five knew much, if anything, about Judaism. SlRubenstein is confusing Jewish history, which comprehends everything about people of Jewish descent, with Judaism, which exists as a substantive to designate the core religion of that people, as developed from the Second Temple onwards. The two terms are not synonyms. If someone calls, to refer to an earlier argument, Judaism a 'civilization', that doesn't 'dereligionize' it, any more than Christopher Dawson's writing of 'Christian civilization' could be taken to mean that Christianity was not only a religion, but something larger. In fact it is highly probable that Mordecai Kaplan's book reflects the strong current in Europe in polemics of the 1920s to conceive of Christianity as a civilization under threat. Nishidani (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

" SLSubenstein's mistake is to say that because Jews also had an extra-religious dimension, Judaism must encompass it, and therefore Judaism is a larger category than is allowed by the word understood, as it almost invariably is, by Jews and goys, in a strictly religious sense." Can you tell me where I ever said this? I do not believe this, so I am not sure where I would have said this. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is the word goy. I think if the above writer rewrote it he would have used "non-Jew." Or maybe I just don't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "beliefs and practices" can mean "religion", but it also leaves room for broader interpretations, such as that of influential Jewish thinkers like Mordachai Kaplan or Echad HaAm, both of whom understood Judaism to be an ethnicity that includes a religion, rather than merely a religion by itself. Using the term "religon" to describe Judaism gives undue weight to a particular point of view on Judaism. egfrank.

In the meantime...

Main article: v:What is Judaism?

I found Abecedare's discussion of the Hinduism dispute and resolution interesting. The problem over there is that currently, the Hinduism article has what might be considered OR in the footnote, regarding what Hinduism is. In my opinion, footnotes are also too space constrained for an interesting and complicated topic such as this.

I suggest an alternative proposal. Why don't we create an essay v:What is Judaism? that contains OR, on Wikiversity? It could argue both sides of the case, whether Judaism is a religion or not. Slrubenstein, I think you've uncovered some interesting materials that belong over there and working on Wikiversity instead of Wikipedia eliminates the OR requirement. Wikiversity is the wiki specifically set up for OR. Then we might have a link to the essay featuring prominently in the article (as I have it above, or in some other way). What do you think of this idea? --AFriedman (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with people discussing Judaism at Wikiversity. But I have no interest in original research; I have no interest in writing an essay on what I think Judaism is. I genuinely do not understand the OR concerns. I cited several sources that state clearly that Judaism is more than a religion, or that define Judaism differently (a legal system, a religious civilization, and so on). Where have I violated WP:NOR? The claim has been made, but no one has pointed to a specific example of my presenting original research. I am not presenting my views, I am presenting the views of Soloveitchik, Kaplan, Rackman, Cohen, and Rosenthal. Why should this article disregard these reliable sources? Where have I violated NOR? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming you added OR to the article. I just think we're not too far from gathering up the sources that would lend themselves to an original synthesis of the arguments, and it would be a shame to let all of that reference work go to waste simply because of this wiki's OR policy. As I see it, this discussion is moving toward a very interesting essay that would be a great link from the main Judaism article. I'd be happy to help with the essay while the page is being protected. --AFriedman (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think your idea is constructive and I know made in good faith. But I have to repeat, i have no interest in writing an essay on what I think about Judaism. I came here to help write an encyclopedia. I thought encyclopedias are supposed to share with the general public the current research on various topics. I thought that in order to help write an encyclopedia article one needed first to read works by scholars on a given topic. That is all i have tried to do here. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is ever truly neutral. Even the picking of sources is subject to the point of view of the editor. Are there limits? Sure. But who is an "expert"? A Christian writing about Judaism? A historian? An atheist? An Orthodox Jew? They will differ in their terminology, and editors will differ regarding who they consider an expert. in this Wikipedia guidelines are good, but nothing is perfect when people are involved. As I mentioned before, those internal to a paradigm are somewhat less likely to phrase it in generic terms -- even scholars. As long as we recognize that the editors are biased, and that the experts are biased, then we can work together to compensate for those biases that we point out in each other.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tim, what is your bias? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Orthodox -- but I always seem to be harder on my own group :-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay Tim, as sources I drew on two Orthodox Rabbis (Soloveitchik and Rackman), a Conservative Rabbi (Schechter), a Reconstructionist Rabbi (Kaplan) and a historian who teaches at Brown University. Can you tell me how you think my bias is limiting the value of my contribution? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all in this particular instance, and in fact I've argued to keep your wording, on the grounds that to normal English readers "beliefs and practices" is synonymous with "religion" and your nuances will be completely unnoticed.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lift protection

Talking about "in the mean time". If all edit warring editors will agree here in writ that they will not continue the edit war, and that they will seek consensus here first, I am sure the protecting editor will agree to reduce the protection level back, and we can continue working on this article. Please list your name here all those involved (even if not involved in the edit warring itself).

• Agree. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, with one added point: consensus should be based on reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that is a comment and not a condition? Debresser (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a condition, but it is not my condition. I am just reminding other that wikipedia policy is to base articles on reliable sources. It is Wikipedia's condition. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. --AFriedman (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Never participated in the war itself, don't intend to start now, and find the strong feelings on this to be rather over the top given the relatively small semantic consequences. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree -- this is a non-issue.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree -- I stopped before the protection, and even erased my final comment on the issue. A Sniper (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree -- I wished to correct a passive/active voice irregularity and cannot do so while this conflict persists Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• • It's great to see all editors agree at least on this aspect! I have removed the full-protection so that regular editing of the article can continue while the discussion on the lede sentences is underway. Please do not edit the lead sentences till *clear* consensus is reached; if you need help determining whether a consensus has been reached or where it lies, consider starting an RFC that can then be closed by an uninvolved editor. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This page needs a Shabbat mode. ;-) Dosbears (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing probation: To prevent recurrences of the recent edit-revert cycle, which may spark of another edit war, here is what I suggest:

• If an editor makes a good-faith changes to the lead sentences (from this status quo) that do not yet have consensus here, point them to the this discussion, and request them to self-revert. Do not revert the edits yourself, as that may set off what we are trying to avoid.
• If the editor chooses not to self-revert, post a message at my talk page, or ask any uninvolved admin to help.

Of course, pure vandalism can be reverted as usual, and does not have to follow this process. I assume there will be no objections to this editing restraint; let me know if you do object or have a better suggestion. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Please be aware that I had reverted an editor twice before you wrote this, as stated in the section below. I hope you are now aware of the problem with that editor as well. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I realize that. The probation is only to help prevent future distractions. Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent way to deal with this. Shlomke (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Do any of you read OTHER articles like religion? I quote: "Judaism accepts only the prophets of the Torah, but also relies on the authority of rabbis. It is practiced by the Jewish people, an ethnic group currently centered in Israel but also scattered throughout the Jewish diaspora. Today, Jews are outnumbered by Christians and Muslims." (what is the relevance of numbers?)

Are you going to rewrite that article also?

What about Monotheism?

If Wikipedia declares that Judaism is not a religion, it will be a laughing stock across the World, hitting every religion-based blog on the internet!

Although the article on religion lacks it, the etymology of religion is re- "again" + legere "read" (according to Cicero), and the first religion that had the practice of repetitive reading of its texts, and still does, is Judaism with its thrice a week Torah readings, and its Talmud learning by repetition! If there is one religion that deserves the name of religion in its literal sense, its Judaism!

I would suggest that you stop this talkfest and think before you edit. I would propose that my recent intro be adopted, but its not perfect and I'm sure can be improved.

Please note that edit warring can only be applied to someone who reverts other people's edits without a good reason/summary. So far I have been the one reverted without a summary or explanation. Therefore I do not consider myself edit warring with anyone--Meieimatai? 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Meieimatai, part of collaborative (rather than disruptive) editing is taking seriously what other editors say, in good faith. Now, can you name one single editor who has said that Wikipedia should declare that Judaism is not a religion? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is advocating that Judaism is a religion either. The body of the article is the place where whatever contentious issues are being raised and discussed on this page can be ironed out, or at least addressed, based on reliable sources. Shorthand, in the intro, is not easily going to be arrived at, and it is going to be faulty (in my opinion) because the phenomenon of Judaism is too complex to be characterized by a few "perfect" words.

I will say, that "religion" is the one most appropriate term. Is there any other brief term that would aptly replace "religion" as the descriptor of Judaism? [User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist that it be a brief term? That appears to be an artificial requirement. -Lisa (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There are space constraints for an introductory paragraph. I think the subject we are probing is "opening up a can of worms." Not that it should not be explored. But I think it is asking a bit much to characterize Judaism in 5 words or less, or some such phenomenon. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If one word isn't enough, a few have to be used. If a few isn't enough, a whole sentence has to be used. Conciseness may not come at a too high price. A certain lack of accuracy is acceptable, but within limits. Debresser (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You all know that I am satisfied with and in fact prefer "beliefs and practices." I never provided a full explanation why and perhaps this will help? Right after "beliefs and practices" it says that Jews relate Judaism to the covenental relationship between God and the People (or nation?) of Israel, or something to that effect. And isn't that really the core? It is this second sentence that I always thought was the indespensable one in the paragraph. A sentence in which we have "covenant" and mention God and Am Yisroal - do we need to define Judaism or describe it with one word, don't "covenant" "God" and "Israel" pretty much get to the heart of it? And the rest of the paragraph mentions mitzvot and halachot? Let's face it: in Wikipedia, one of the main functions of introductions is to provide words that can be linked to other articles to take advantage of hypertext to more fully explain something. When I look at introduction paragraphs in other artices, aside from expecting them to introduce the article as a whole, I look to see if all the essential words are linked there. Now, people can go to the article on "religion" - I personally do not think that this article is going to tell them the most about what counts in Judaism. But "covenant," "God" and "Israel," I think those three words do get to the heart of it. I know this is my own view, I am just saying that 3 words is not too much for an introduction and I think these three words get to it. Some Jews will disagree but I think this is the mainstream view and even those Jews who disagree will agree that these three words are at the essense of all our sacred literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You, Slrubenstein are advocating that Judaism is not a religion because "beliefs and practices." need not require religious, i.e. obligatory observance. For this reason both the Christianity and Islam are called religions because those few aspects of them that are obligatory define someone as a Christian or a Muslim, but if nothing in Judaism is obligatory, then defining someone as a Jew is far more open to interpretation as I discovered in the article Who is a Jew?, and the reason I'm participating in editing here.

Now, since it says in the second paragraph that "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest to survive into the present day.", why not just edit that into the first paragraph by merging the two sentences as I had done in my suggested intro? After all, the first two sections in the article confirm it is a religion--Meieimatai? 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Wording

Right now I know of three that were proposed (one by me):

1. sets of beliefs and practices
2. religion
3. sets of religious beliefs and practices

Are there any others? I'm not after pros and cons yet -- just wanting to list the options.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd add internal links. At least to religion and religious. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

4. religious traditions (Suggested by Abecedare) --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Social, ethical and religious traditions and practices. Collect (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this one because if it were to be implemented in the sentence, the average person would have to read it several times to discern its meaning.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Too unwieldy. I know we're trying to please everyone, but that's going too far. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Social and religious traditions and practices" then? The purpose is, indeed, to try to be inclusive of everyone's concerns on this. Judaism, especially today for secular Jews, is not easy to categorize as a "religion" at all. Collect (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion would make the sentence read "Judaism refers to sets of social and religious traditions and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh, and explored and explained in later texts such as the Talmud." In my opinion that's still quite a mouthful. I may be alone in thinking that, but that's my two cents. Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And "sets of" is clearly superfluous at that point. "Judaism refers to social and religious traditions and practices set out in the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, and discussed in later texts such as the Talmud." Actually simpler than the current wording, to be sure. Two cents - plain. Collect (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "Judiasm has been viewed as a religion, nation, civilization, or some combination." ? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nation" shalt incur the wrath of ArbCom -- talk about opening the door to some major fighting! Collect (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is nation a problem? Everyone knows that Jews regard themselves as a nation.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I see no problem with the wording nation.Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think Reform Jews do. Nor most Conservative ones. -Lisa (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The other issue is that of Israel as a nation. The prospect for having the Palestine issue being then grafted on is not one I would relish. Collect (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As far as I know, Conservative Jews see Judaism as a nation. Reform jews for a very long time definitely did not but in the US at least they have been changing and I think they are now divided. This is the closest to a definitive statement. It affirms that they have retreated from their 1885 disavowalof the Jewish nation; that they believe in am yisroal and support the claims to Jewish national sovereignty embodied in the state of Israel which reform Jews should support and draw sustenance from. In any event, jews have had an unbroken claim to nationhood since forever, itis in the daily prayers. There is no reason why reporting this accurately has to in any way raise any questions about Palestinian claims to natonhood. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Should"? The fact is that it will attract those with POVs on the matter of Israel like flies, and it is not essential to the lede. This lede has to be pragmatic. "The primary locus of the dispute concerns articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also encompasses articles on topics related to Judaism and Islam in relation to a wider editing conflict between pro- and anti-Zionist editors, and pro- and anti-Islamic editors." is from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop Final wording is "Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to the project; deep-seated and long-standing real world conflicts between the peoples of Palestine and Israel have been transferred to Wikipedia. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." Thus opening the door an inch is too far. Collect (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What is essential to the lead is the major ways Jews have viewed Judaism, and nationhood is one of them. The Arbcom guidelines cannot be a reason to stray from fact. It is as simple as that. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this has definitely brought my attention to a serious problem. Judaism IS a national identity. The entire religion focuses on the national character of the people, with all the primary characteristics of a nation: common religion, common language, and common territorial interest. This shouldn't prjudice Wikipedia against Palestinians, and in fact it establishes the basis for half of the conflict. Now that I'm aware of a prejudice against this subject, I have to say that any lede which does NOT mention the national character of Judaism would be inappropriate and unencyclopedic.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Judaism has never been a 'national' identity. In part because while Judah existed as a national identity (until Roman renaming into Syria-Palaestina), monotheism was its identity when viewed by others, since at that time its population still retained tribal identities, despite majority coming from that of the Tribe of Judah. From its inception during exodus from Egypt, the religious national identity has been that of monotheism, not 'Judaism' which is, as the article says, only extant from the Renaissance --Meieimatai? 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nation should be included in the lead. As an example, we always read how the Jewish nation survived persecution for two thousand years. Shlomke (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the lot of you have forgotten what this is - its an encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, and do so consistently, including to comply with information found in other encyclopedias so as not to confuse the reader.

It seems to me that there is a World-wide consensus that there are three primary monotheistic religions, as it says in the article, and this article ought not to contradict any of this.

Besides this, and this is borne out in a plethora of other articles on the subject, 'beliefs and practices' in Judaism, regardless of the denomination, have their origins in religious practices and not in some editorial debate conducted here. You people just need to read Wikipedia more widely.

Hence I adjusted the article to conform with other monotheistic religions, closely resembling the wording which is not only consistent, and reached by consensus there, but meets other important criteria like common sense.--Meieimatai? 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

PS.I'll be adding an article with a list of prophets in Judaism that is properly referenced in the next couple of days to cover the redlink--Meieimatai? 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Meieimatai, I have reverted all your edits. Not only because I disagree with you, but because this page was unprotected on the explicit condition that no edits be made without reaching consensus first. Your edit was not discussed, and in view of the many sections above on this talkpage, can not be implemented until fully discussed. BTW, your edit about the name word "Yahadut" is original research unless you would provide a source. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Had you read before reverting, you would have noticed that:

1. Yahudit - was not my edit

2. Consensus about Judaism being a monotheistic religion was reached on the article Monotheism

3. What I added is a synthesis of introductions from Christianity and Islam, which are also monotheistic religions according to Wikipedia, but with changes relevant to Judaism. Since consensus on these three articles has been achieved, and since essentially the consensus sought here is on whether Judaism is something more than 'beliefs and practices', it seems to me that I acted within the scope of Wikipedia's consensus policy to ensure consistency across a closely linked group of articles. It is one of the core goals of Wikipedia not to confuse the readers.

Please feel free to point out what it is exactly that you do not agree with before you revert again. Personally I would prefer a better article to describe the non-literal interpretation of the Torah (Written and Oral), so will replace literary with a link to here.--Meieimatai? 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Meieimatai, please undo your recent changes to the lede, until you establish clear consensus for the changes. The page was unprotected with the understanding of involved editors that such changes will not be made until consensus is reached; and unilateral and disruptive disregard of that agreement may be dealt with blocks, to avoid a renewed edit-war. Therefore I am requesting you to revert your change and participate in the discussion instead. Abecedare (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I had notified this user of this situation before he reverted to his version. In view of this editor's record, we might be dealing with a problematic editor here. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The user could be editing in good faith, or not; there is not much point in speculating. I will keep a watch for now to ensure that a new edit-war doesn't distract from the discussion here. I have added a editing probation above, which I think may help. Hopefully this move will be non-controversial. Abecedare (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You bet I'm problematic - I'm the sane one!

Do any of you read OTHER articles like religion? I quote: "Judaism accepts only the prophets of the Torah, but also relies on the authority of rabbis. It is practiced by the Jewish people, an ethnic group currently centered in Israel but also scattered throughout the Jewish diaspora. Today, Jews are outnumbered by Christians and Muslims." (what is the relevance of numbers?)

Are you going to rewrite that article also?

What about Monotheism?

If Wikipedia declares Judaism not a religion it will be a laughing stock across the World, hitting every religion-based blog on the internet!

Although the article on religion lacks it, the etymology of religion is re- "again" + legere "read" (according to Cicero) and the first religion that had the practice of repetitive reading of its texts, and still does, is Judaism with its thrice a week Torah readings and its Talmud learning by repetition! If there is one religion that deserves the name of religion in its literal sense, its Judaism!

I would suggest that you stop this talkfest and think before you edit. I would propose that my recent intro be adopted, but its not perfect and I'm sure can be improved.--Meieimatai? 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We have "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions" in the second paragraph of the lede. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to reach an end to the conflict

I vote for #3, with the IL: "sets of religious beliefs and practices". Debresser (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the entire proposed lede presented here thank you. I would also like to see comparison between this article and the other Monotheistic religion article ledes--Meieimatai? 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And I, and likely most of the other editors here, am interested at the moment in this one question alone. Sorry, another time. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestions

Slrubenstein made other suggestions on how to improve the article which are far more worthy than debating if Judaism is a religion or not, and I repost them here

• principles of Rabbinic theology, as expressed for example in Baba Metzia 59 a and b (the oven of Aknai), in the idea that in heaven God and Moshe Rabeinu are studying Torah too, Sanhedrin 34a, that any verse of Torah can have many interpretations - these examples suggest a relationship between Jews and God that is very different from what is found in other religions. I am not trying to claim that Judaism is uniquely unique, just trying to put my finger on important things that need to be explained because they may not make sense immediately to non-Jews
• Rabbinic hermeneutics, I mean the different methods, techniques one uses to interpret a text. Here is an example where Judaism is not just ritual and creed (I don't want to get into an unnecessary argument over semantics, "religion" is just too vague that is the only reason I do not use it now). When someone takes an English course in university they learn methods for interpreting literature like Shakespeare. Well, the Sages developed methods for interpreting texts. They happened to use these techniques on sacred texts but the fact is one can use them to analyze any text.
• principles behind parts of Jewish law that are not "religious" i.e. contract law and damages. These are not just interpretations of Torah, they reflect a set of values concerning relations among people comparable to civil law in the US, UK, France, Germany .... my point is that there is stuff here that is comparable not to Christianity, but to the US, and it too is an important part of Judaism. We are not allowed to practice these laws in the US or UK, and yet we still study the.? Why? because they express important values we need to understand even if the specific laws are not enforced. I won't say that this is more important than kashrus or Shabbos, but isn't this stuff still important parts of Judaism?--Meieimatai? 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My main thought is this: the article already emphasizes (correctly, in my view) what Jews do over what they believe. But it strikes me that one thing Jews do a lot - or rather, one deed of central importance to Judaism, is to study. It is even in the words, "schul" or "Beis Midrash." The point of my specific suggestions is that how Jews study, which involves theological assumptions (e.g. God in heaven is also studying, and the idea of lo b'shamayim hu, that perhaps God gives attention to the debates of the sages, so that when we study we are in a way in communion with God) as well as specific procedures and principles of logic and interpretation - e.g. Rabbi Ishmael's 13 rules from Sifra, which can be compared and contrasted to Western principles of logic and interpretation (e.g. Aristotle) and which can be applied to any text, not just strictly Jewish or religious ones - that characterize "Judaism" and thus merit explication in the article. I am not the most qualified person to write such a section, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact I had the intention to address this elsewhere, but it requires building up foundational articles to do so. It should be included in this article, but since the editors here and now, including yourself, have trouble with joining two sentences together, I am not prepared to embark on this project.

Besides that I am still going to work on Who is a Jew? as it still lacks the quality in structure and referencing I would expect.--Meieimatai? 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Elements

Rather than saying what Judaism IS, perhaps we should say what Judaism concerns. Is Judaism a nation? Well, apparently people want to argue about that. But surely no one needs argue whether Judaism contains national interests. Does Judaism have one God? Well, that depends on if God exists. But Judaism believes there is one God. The first is an absolute statement and the second is not.

Judaism is a religion that contains national, practical, legal, and linguistic elements. Most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew, while facing the temple mount in Jerusalem. The prayers are not only focused to God about moral concerns, but also about legal and practical ones: what is commanded. And, finally, Judaism contains specific limits to belief: only one God, an eternal Torah, etc. None of these elements is a single defining character of Judaism, however. It is not JUST a nation, or JUST a culture, or JUST an ethnic group, or JUST a religion (and of course no religion is "just" a religion, or else we editors would have nothing more to write about them, would we?).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The above contains what I believe to be an incorrect statement. Not even Orthodox Judaism encourages prayer to be in Hebrew, that is, if Hebrew is not the language you understand. Not that I am aware of a monolithic stance on this, but the Artscroll English siddur (prayerbook) advises folks to use the language they understand. If that language is Hebrew, then fine — Hebrew it is. But if only English is understood, the suggestion is to use English. The siddur I am referring to has English and Hebrew on facing pages — translations of one another, Hebrew on the right, English on the left. The argument can be made that this is a sales technique — to promote this particular version amongst the multitude of siddurim (plural of siddur) on the market. I am just reporting what I know. Perhaps others can weigh in if they know more. But I am just saying that I have encountered reason to believe that it is not the case, as asserted above, that "Most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew…" It seems that even in the case of Orthodox Jews, prayer in English, or whatever language is known best, has its share of advocates. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I believe Art Scroll is giving advice to individuals. Tim is correct that all major movements of Judaism encourage - and some require - that public or led prayer services be in Hebrew. An individual can take a siddur to synagogue and read to himself or herslef in English or whatever language. But the congregation as a whole, and whoever is leading, will be praying in Hebrew. Jews who wish to pray regularly are encouraged to learn Hebrew too. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. In the past few decades, even the Reform movement has been encouraging the use of Hebrew in services, and many congregations have Hebrew classes.Dosbears (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there are several sources that clearly state that prayer in Hebrew is preferable, since it is the Holy Tongue. Angels, these sources say, do not understand other languages, so they can not help forwarding the prayers "higer up". Debresser (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that, "An individual can take a siddur to synagogue and read to himself or herslef in English or whatever language." Slrubenstein -- one need not bring an English siddur (or Chumash) to an Orthodox synagogue. The shelves there are groaning under the weight of siddurim in English. The person leading does so in Hebrew because he knows Hebrew. Prayer is 90% silent and 100% between man and G-d (even between athiests and G-d). Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not argue that Hebrew does not occupy a place of importance in Judaism. But the baal teshuva phenomenon is an Orthodox phenomenon. And I think one small thing that fascilitates the participation of nonobservant Jews in services (daavening) is the presence of a plethora of material in English. It may be counterintuitive, but Artscroll Hebrew-English material is used especially by Orthodox synagogues.Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, above Tim wrote that Judaism contains "linguistic elements." You immediately wrote that he was incorrect. Nothing you have written since has in any way shown him to be incorrect. What exactly did Tim write that you are saying is incorrect? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I am saying that in Orthodox synagogues there is emphasis on comprehension. It is not so simple that Judaism encourages prayer in Hebrew. Comprehension is important too. Therefore if Hebrew is not well understood, there is the emphasis on using the language of one's choice. By the way, there are prayer books (siddurim) in other languages besides English — Russian, for instance. It may be counterintuitive to understand that this approach comes from the most conservative groups of observant Jews — those often referred to as the Orthodox. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh... so just to be clear, now you are saying that you agree with Tim that Judaism "contains linguistic elements?" I don't see how this contradicts anything you wrote. Why do you think Tim is wrong? "The above contains what I believe to be an incorrect statement." Does it, or doesn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment on the concept of "linguistic elements." My comments are in relation to a notion expressed that Judaism encourages prayer to be in Hebrew. I think the notion that "most branches of Judaism encourage prayer to be in Hebrew" is especially untrue because the results of an examination of the spectrum of observance are counterintuitive in that the most conservative end of that spectrum is in fact the most progressive or the most tolerant of the introduction of a foreign element in the form of a foreign language. It is the groups at the most conservative end of the spectrum of Jewish observance that represent the market for the books that open up religious observance to people speaking and understanding many languages other than Hebrew. It is not just Artscroll but other publishing houses as well that are supplying this market, such as Metsudah. You can read a little about it at our siddur article. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we've done a poor job of explaining what "encourage prayer to be in Hebrew" means. It doesn't mean that a person's personal silent prayer is in Hebrew, it means that the prayer service is in Hebrew. There's a set sequence of prayers, as well as psalms and verses from various prophets, that are done as a community, whether they're out loud or silent, in Hebrew. The siddurim also include English for private reading, but it isn't read aloud in the service.Dosbears (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For that they would have to come up with an implantable chip. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many siddurim have at least some transliterated Hebrew for people who aren't comfortable with the alephbet. The Reform movement's new Mishkan T'filah has transliteration for all of the Hebrew.Dosbears (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration's most popular application might be kaddish. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. As an aside, let me add that this may be true about other religions/philosophies/civilizations. Some of what you write for example may be true of Christianity (except for the nation part?) - I have no objection to someone editing the article on Chrisianity to reflect that. I do not think it is productive to keep comparing this article to other articles. let us focus on what "Judaism" contains, as you so constructively suggest, according to reliable sources. Following your suggestion I think you open up areas of the body of the article that need work. You point to "contents" of Judaism that should be spelled out a bit in this article. The laws of kashrut are important. But so is Jewish Tort law, and contract law. There are laws that Jews living in the Diaspora cannot practice, yet which Jews continue to study because those laws teach important principles ... those principles belong in this articl. I think you are opening up a productive conversation about the body of the article. Once the article is clearer about the elements that as you say judaism contains, we can figure out what kind of introduction concisely and clearly introduces the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been state religions, some of which have been Christian. It is therefore hard to see how it can logically be said that Judaism is distinguished from other religions by language within the Jewish religion itself suggestive of notions of or aspirations to nationhood when clear evidence exists historically of Christian religious penetration into what otherwise would be secular government. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you agree with what I just wrote, then? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I don't know if I agree with you or not. You say, "Once the article is clearer about the elements that as you say judaism contains, we can figure out what kind of introduction concisely and clearly introduces the article." Really? Aren't you assuming a condensed version of the article exists? What makes you think a few words in an introduction can be so "concise" as to take up very little of the reader's precious time and yet be accurate and contain a modicum completeness? Why the necessity to burden the introduction with the responsibility of summarizing the article? All of this is about summation. Why not let the details speak for themselves? Judaism, like Christianity, has been basically known as a religion, for perhaps 2000 years. Why the apparent interest in redefining Judaism? This amount of interest is unlikely attributable to mere language use. This level of debate is the result of strong feelings. I question the impetus to both enlarge and shrink the presented perception of Judaism. On the one hand we are talking of what goes into a small space — an "introduction." On the other hand all suggestions are to increase the wordage to beyond the single word "religion." That to me bears the hallmarks of redefinition. It is simplification and restatement. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my intention is to see if we agree on anything. If we agree on some things, I think it helps to be clear bout that, so we cn focus on what we disagree about (at least if we wish to continue trying to work this out). When i asked you if you agreed with me I specifically meant the second, third, and fourth sentences of my 14:18, 13 November 2009 post. I just meant, is that what you are agreeing with?

As for the introduction, I did not mean to say the introduction must summarize the article. I meant that it ought to "introduce" the article, like the introducion of a book introduces the book. I think this is a good principle for all Wikipedia articles: th introduction should "introduce" the article. This means that different articles will have different introductions.

I know one place where we definitely disagree. You say for two thousand years Judaism was known as a religion. I disagree. In 1806 Napolean told French Jews that they could be French citizens (equal with gentiles) if they renounced their nationhood and identified as a religion. In 1885 the Reform Movement in he US produced the "Pittsburgh Platform" renouncing claims of Judaism to nationhood, and stating that it is a religion. The reason thse groups of Jews had to declare themselves religions is because before, Judaism was not defined as just a religion (yes, it was a religion, my point is that it was not just a religion); it was a nation. Reform Jews in the US have since renounced the Pittsburgh Platform. I have cited a number of significant sources that show Jewish leaders identifying Judaism as something other than a religion or as not just a religion. I also cited historian Shaye Cohen. His argument is that today Jews continue to argue over and be unsure of whether Judaism is a religion, an ethnic group, a race, a nation, a civilization, and that in the first century there is evidence of a comparable uncertainty about what Judaism was. But these sources agree: if it was a religion, it was also an ethnic group and a nation.

Bus stop, the thing that bothers me most is that i have spent time reading books by Jewish leaders as well as histories of Judaism in order to provide significant views from reliable sources. But as far as I recall you have never done any research on this or if you have you have not shared it with us. I believe that in this comment I have addressed you respectfully, in good faith and assuming good faith. But you have never refered to any of the sources I have provided, and you continue to insist that judaism has consistently been a religion for two thousand years without providing any sources, and without explaining my sources. It seems to me that you are not showing me any good faith whatsoever. I have not expressed my own view on whether judaism is a nation or a race or a religion, I have only been trying to find the views in reliable sources. Do you agree with me that this is what we should be doing, or do you disagree? If you agree, why do you ignore the sources? If you disagree, are you not rejection NPOV, v, and NOR policies? Are you just sharing ith us your own view? Since you did not provide a source, it sounds like this is your own view. Or do you hold a different view? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I retract that "religion" is the word that has been attached to Christianity and/or Judaism for 2000 years. I don't know that and I said that unthinkingly. But I am skeptical of sources as all Wikipedians should be. All pivots on sources. Sources are both our enemies and our friends. Not because someone else might find sources to support a viewpoint we disagree with. But because sources have to be weighed against one another. You can probably find a source that describes Judaism any way. You point to one or two or three sources saying that Judaism is a culture or a nation or practice. I'm not impressed. I'm inclined to call Judaism Judaism. Since that doesn't make sense I would call Judaism a religion. What one word would you call Judaism, if you were only allowed a one word reference? Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus, as I mentioned to Sl separately, editors are supposed to take terms that people already know to explain things that they don't know. One way to find out what terms to use is to reverse the question. Is Judaism a religion, or a nation, or a language, or a legal system? Well, let's reverse that... Jews have a religion, a nation, a language, and a legal system. What is that legal system? It's Halakha. What is the language? It's Hebrew. What's the nation? It's Israel. And the religion? The Jewish religion is "Judaism."

Does that make Judaism ONLY a religion? No. Nothing is ONLY anything. But it's a good place to start. So, that's where we start -- but if we stop there we'll only be telling people what they already know.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sky-Writer, that is your personal view. Alas, Wikipedia policy says we keep our own views out of articles even if they make sense. Bus stop,I do not ever see sources as our enemies. Maybe I not understand you. I donot see how they can be enemies. A source is a source is a source. We do our best, and as people discover other sources, we make changes. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that is NEVEr finished allways a work in progress. I make an edit today based on one source, you make an edit next week based on another sourvce, where is there an enemy? We have sources saying Judaism is a religion, we have sources saying Judaism is other than a religion. So our article should at some point explain both (actually. several) points of view. I just want an introduction that does not single-out any point of view Slrubenstein | Talk 23:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, sorry, I don't mean literally as our "enemies." Why should Wikipedia be the encyclopedia that is never finished? Is there an ideal in unfinished-ness? If you want an introduction that doesn't single out any one point of view, why not leave all points of view out of the introduction? Allow the points that take up the concerns that are expressed on this page to be addressed in the main body of the article, where they can be given adequate space for proper treatment. Sourced information can then be brought to bear to support the points that the variety of editors here feel need to be brought out. In the introduction simply say that Judaism is monotheistic. And similar statements that sidestep questions being grappled with here. For instance, no one is disputing how old Judaism is, so why not say that Judaism is 3,000 years old and monotheistic? A note can be placed at the end of the introduction saying, see paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 (or whatever) for treatment of the nature of Judaism. As I said above, I think it is an error in thinking to try to represent complex thoughts in just a few words. Human phenomena are complex. A lot of sources have commented on Judaism. If for no other reason than space constraints, material from sources has to be digested and weighed against sources that are at variance with one another. Editing is not a simple mechanical process. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sl, it is NOT my personal view that we use English when editing en.wikipedia.org. It's standard practice. I did not say that terms are completely reversible. I merely said that we keep that in mind when editing in order to not confuse readers. The term "Israel" refers to a nation (Am Yisrael), a state (Israel), a person (Israel), and an ancient kingdom (Israel). "Judaism" also refers to a number of different things that you are trying to point out, and I support the fact that you are trying to point these out. It is not merely a religion -- but it is also a religion. Jews DO have a religion, don't they? Well, what is that religion called if it is not "Judaism"? Give me a different term to use, if that's some fringe POV on my part.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a lede should be as comprehensive as possible in indicating what follows in the article. Ledes which make any absolute statement are likely to be quite confusing when readers then find the statement is not only inaccurate in its import. but leaves out major issues (not fringe issues) relating to a proper synopsis of the article. In the case at hand, any statement in the lede which equates Judaism specifically as "religion" which omits mention that there are certainly non-religious attributes, would be disserving readers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One correction: "Israel" is not a nation, but a state. And it is not the state of Judaism either. It is a secular state (mostly), founded by secular (mostly) Jews. Just a state, as any other one. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser makes a very important correction. Nations are not the same thing as states. Today many think so, because beginning in the 17th century "nation-states" developed in Europe and have promoted themselves as the model: every state should have one nation (which is why Napolean forced Jews to give up claims to nationhood) and every nation should have one state (one of the forces behind the emergence of Zionism in the 19th century). The idea of the "nation-state" has also been problematic in European history - on of the forces leading to the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire was the desire to reoganize it as nation-states, but the 20th century has also been marked by real anxiety on the part of many Europeans about letting the German nation have one state. Zionists claim that the Jewish nation should have one state, and that Israel is the state for Jews. This argument did not have widespread support until after the Holocaust but some Jewish groups still challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel. But I think it is accurate to say that most Jews do not believe that the jewish nation is restricted to the state of Israel. Those who believe that Judaism has a national aspect still see much of the nation as living in the diaspora. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Jews will tell you that Israel applies to at least four individuals in the Torah, a people as a whole, a kingdom, and a modern state. So what about that 'representing everyone's views' thingy?--Meieimatai? 00:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)