Talk:Judaism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

This article is much too long

As the Wikipedia warning that appears every time you try to edit this page correctly tells us, this article is far too long.

I just restored a chunk of text (on Israeli denominations) that was cut a couple of weeks ago but not put into the Jewish denominations article (as the note suggested it was). Nevertheless, I agree that the Judaism article is much too long and material should be cut drastically. Not by simply deleting it or even summarizing it in this article, but by moving it to more immediately relevant articles. I.e. by taking each long section, and replacing it with one or two general paragraphs containing links to the relevant articles that explore each issue in depth. Or even just a list of links. For instance: "Jewish denominations" could have one paragraph mentioning the major denominations (or perhaps one for diaspora and a second for Israel), or even just a list of them. --Dovi--

The article is STILL much too long. Can we please work on this talk page to identify sections which can be slimmed down and merged to the bare essentials. Remember that most, if not all, of the sections of this article have their own articles elsewhere. This article should offer an introduction to these topics, and not an exhaustive treatment.

If you can see flab which we can try to cut out, please start a new discussion below, proposing the changes you think should be made. Thanks Nomist 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please propose specific sections that could be split off to form independant articles. Please note that this is a popular article, and I would strongly recommend you seek consensus on the talk page first before making broad-ranging alterations to the article structure. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

cut down Jewish literature section

To get the ball rolling, I suggest that this section could be cut considerably. A list of rabbinic books is unecessary in this article; it is not, as it stands, very informative, and it is daunting to the casual reader, who is looking for an introduction to the topic. Nomist 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rabbinic books are the core of traditional Judaism, which is an extraordinarily text-based religion. While not valuable to a very casual reader, this list is extremely useful anyone who is just a bit more than mildly informed, and wants a carefully structured outline to send him/her to more detailed information. Dovi 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the significance of Rabbinic literature. However, the reader who wants a carefully structured outline will find the separate article on that topic much more useful, and it's no effort for them to click the link to that article instead. Furthermore, there's a significant overlap between the Rabbinic Lit section and the Legal Lit section immediately below. Couldn't they be merged? Or restructured? Nomist 10:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem obvious that you could make a Rabbinic Literature entry all of its own, as well as Yiddish Literature, Modern Hebrew or Israeli Literature and so on. There is no need to have it all here. danielybrenner 9:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thirteen principles of faith

How interesting, they seem totally different what the thirteen principles of faith really are. Is this vandalism? Or is this really the best of the web? eeemess 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

13 Principles aren't my area of expertise. But, do we really need a summary of them here? I'm prepared to remove the list, leaving the rest of the text in that section along with the link to the main 13 Principles article. Any objections? Nomist 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the old list with the simpler, more accurate list I found at Jewish_principles_of_faith. However, while I believe that is sufficient for the Judaism article, the 13Ps are important enough to deserve more thorough treatement in the Jewish_principles_of_faith (or even their own) article. I've pasting below the old list that I removed from the Judaism article to Talk:Jewish_principles_of_faith, as it has some useful stuff in it, despite being wrong in places. Let's try to get it up to standard and put it back in that article. Nomist 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism

Hopefully, we in Wikipedia have the Criticism of Christianity and the Criticism of Islam articles. But one just wonders why not have the same regarding this great religion i.e. Judaism. Is there any objection to such an article? If not, may I suggest a very comprehensive and detailed research of Rabbi David Bar Chaim from Yeshivat Mercaz haRav as published in Tzfi'a (part 3;5749, page 45) which is available on-line here and another article "Judaic sources on the attitude towards gentiles" as pioneers today in this field. It may be relevant if I'll quote some of their conclusions and other criticisms from other prominent sources (some now, and some at a later time) word by word.

But let me first point out that Judaism has been -justly or not- harshly criticised on many grounds in very different fields which may include: racism against Gentiles, cruelty towards women, intolerance towards and prosecution of other religions and some (Jewish) cults, groups or individuals and many other issues. Naturally, I will not cover all that, but feel free to add any by following very closely an unexceptionable authoritative source in this area. And now, please let me quote the conclusion of Rabbi David bar Chaim (regarding the 'alleged racism in Judaism') in page 61:

• "What arises from all the aforementioned is that in the words of the Prophets, and also in the words of our Sages OBM, the Gentiles are thought of as animals. Even so, it clearly does not mean that they are actually treated as animals, and there are distinctions between Gentiles and animals, for we have already seen that the Halacha deems stealing from a Gentile to be forbidden by the Torah's law, while it is clear that stealing from a beast is not considered stealing. Likewise the Mechilta says that judgement of one who intentionally kills a Gentile is given to Heaven and, of course, this is not the case regarding an animal. Also, the Gentiles were commanded to fulfill the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah in contrast, of course, to animals. Nevertheless, we have seen that the status of the Gentiles in Halacha is similar to that of animals in many respects, and generally speaking, there is no real distinctions made between them...."

and on page 72:

• There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as "man," and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others. Even one who is not an erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be erased or obscured. It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d's word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce "compromises" or "renovations" into it. Any attempt to bypass or ignore certain things will not succeed. Perhaps one may view the aforementioned Halachic laws as an expression of racism; another may see in them baseless hate towards any Gentile. However, for the Jew who is devoted to the Torah as it is, this is the reality and the living path which has been set for the Jewish nation by the word of G-d. One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the abysmal difference between the concepts "Jew" and "Gentile" and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between them."

I would urge you, if I may, to study his deep and comprehensive analysis in Tzfi'a (book 3, 5749; page 45), (please, be sure to read the introduction of The great rabbi Dov Lior on page 43) or on this website and suggest your contributions, if any. I myself have discussed some issues at length here_1 and here_2 and here_3 and here_4 and finally here_5. As you can see, I refer there to the most reliable sources of this great religion, it may be helpful to you or to the article itself.

Anyway, I wonder how possibly had this article been listed as a good article when it comes across as so biased and far from what a honest and true article should look like. I don't remember declaring Judaism as the sacred religion of Wikipedia. Do you? zadil 13:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most because those claims are nonsense. Please see [1]. If you want some good criticism and at least somewhat truthful look in Mark's site.

Jews do not regard gentiles as animals, nor have they ever done so. I think we should not feed this hungry troll. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The same is in regard with Judaism and all forms besides false Judaism claimits. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Simplistic

This article appears to be an advocacy journalism. It does not appear to be objective, scientific, or very historic. Here are a two quick examples from the top:

"Judaism has seldom, if ever, been monolithic in practice, and has not had any centralized authority or binding dogma." -- Dogma as defined in Wikipedia is a "belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted." Judaism obviously has dogma.

Thee are a host of verifiable sources thatclaim that Judaism is not a dogmatic religion. If you have a reputable verifiable source that argues other wise, by allmeans include it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Judaism does not fit easily into conventional Western categories, such as religion, ethnicity, or culture, in part because most of its 4,000-year history predates the rise of Western culture, or occurred outside of the West." -- Judaism obviously has a well established place in Western thought.

You misunderstand the sentence. It does not claim that Judiams does not have a "place" in Western thought at all. Moreover, it follows a quotation froma reputable verifiable source. Again, you can add other views if they are from reputable and verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The examples go on and on. This article needs to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch by religious scholars and not religious advocates. The low quality of this article undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. --LKS 5/10/06

I think the point of the first sentence you quote is that there is no dogma in Judaism that is binding, which is related to the fact that there is no single religous authority (on earth) to define and rule upon beliefs.

You're right that the "doesn't fit" passage needs work. For instance, I'm not happy with its suggestion of a dichotomy between Judaism and 'Western culture', whatever that is meant to be. However, this is a generally good article, and all good faith contributions to improve it are to be encouraged. Please sign your edits on the talk page with four tildes without spaces: ~ ~ ~ ~ Nomist 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the pasaage sugggests such a dichotomoy, but of course if you can make the phrasing clearer by all means do so. All the passage states is that Judaism (which largely developed in non-Western societies and before the riese of Westertn civilization) does not easily fit the categories Western cultures have for classifying clusters of beliefs/practices/identities. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The need to parse the sentence and explain what it really means only emphasizes how poorly the article is written. This does not appear to be a scholarly article. -- LKS 5/10/06

So fix it! That's the point of wikipedia! Nomist 10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

questions

How are they portrayed in the media? how can Catholics learn from this religion?

Blog listing notice

Please note that the blogs listed on the main Judaism page do not represent the views of the Jewish people as a whole, or even a majority. These Blogs have made statements that many Jews, including myself, have been deeply offended by. The articles on the blogs mentioned express the views of the writers and not necessarily the special interest groups that they are made to represent. --Cocopuffberman 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created a notice in the blogs listing at the bottom of the article that restates what I have stated above. If there are any objections to this notice, I would prefer that you create an entry under this heading and we debate the topic. If you delete my notice without debate, I will revert your vandalism. Please do not force me to do this. I refuse to let media such as the blogs listed on the Judaism page represent my religion and my people. --Cocopuffberman 01:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cocopuffberman, I definitely agree with your point and have actually erased the section since the blogs are not about Judaism the religion. Perhaps someone should re-list them in the article "Jew" instead. Shykee 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

In the case of relisting under "Jew", it is critical that people be still reminded that these blogs do not represent the opinions of the entire Jewish people and that they express the views of the writers with a Jewish audience in mind. I believe that this destinction is quite important. --Cocopuffberman 03:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. These blogs are nothing more than a cultural window into one specific sub-culture that happens to have Jewish members. Shykee 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

Romaniotes

One of the most ancient communities of Hebrew Diaspora does not appear in this article, why? Romaniotes. So add it in somewhere, but influence and size have as much to do with importance as age. It sounds like footnote or parenthetical information or possibly a link.