Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Halakha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Conservative Halakha

Strong delete, Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling, all Halacha books by and for conservaive Jews cite traditional Halacha sources. FrummerThanThou 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Halakha. No opinion on that yet. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious merge to Halakha - crz crztalk 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Crz: Merging does not solve the problem here, either logically or ideologically, because this article was created to show how Conservative Judaism's Halakha has itself "forked" from Halakha and that it is now it's own brand of law just as Conservative Judaism is it's own brand of Judaism. Merging this with Halakha would be like asking that the Conservative Judaism article be merged into the Judaism article which would do neither justice. IZAK 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Crz. Unsure on spelling though. Just H 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – from what I understand, Conservative Judaism does follow its own "halakha," which is partially derived from Orthodox halakha, but is definitely separate. --Eliyak T·C 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So let's make it a section in Ortho halakha. (As far as I understand, it's essentially the same, anyway) - crz crztalk 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Conservative view of Halakha or something like that. I think the topic deserves its own article, but nom is correct (at least in theory - in practice is another story...) that they do not have their own fundamentally different halakhic corpus. --DLand^TALK 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and/or rename - too large to merge.--Sandy Scott 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This should not be in an RfD. There isn't even a claim that the material doesn't meet the usual criteria of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. The reason given for deletion -- that Conservative Jews do not have an approach to Halakha distinct from Orthodoxy -- represents a POV and is simply not a valid AfD criterion since it simply doesn't address the question of whether the content is encyclopedic (many reliable sources think the two don't approach things identically, but that's a separate issue.) The only question is where this content should be -- as a stand-alone or as part of another article, such as Conservative Judaism, Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or Halakha. This question should be addressed in an AfM discussion, not an AfD. Finally, the Conservative movement made a very controversial decision last week about the issue of homosexuality. This article is the only place in Wikipedia that contains a detailed discussion of that decision. The AfD process should not be used to eliminate valid information about controversial (and notable) topics. Deletion is completely inappropriate. Speedy Keep. --Shirahadasha 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:POVFORK is a fine, if infrequently invoked, reason for deletion. You can't blame Frummer for not properly referring to it - he's a relative n00b - hence my insightful commentary immediately below the nom. Oppose speedy keep. - crz crztalk 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree that this is a genuine POV fork, any more than Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are POV forks of Judaism. They are separate denominations with separate decision-making bodies making different decisions based on different philosphies. They are legitimate distinct subjects. If we're not going to get rid of all the distinct Conservative Judaism articles -- Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, etc. -- why single this one out? It may be useful to merge for pragmatic reasons, but disagree that there is a need to on policy grounds. --Shirahadasha 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Good. You oppose the nomination. That's fine. But that's not grounds for a Speedy Keep - crz crztalk 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly, and by the way these decision-making bodies don't happen to have an article of their own? They would qualify for an extra speedy delete. They have no such body, and are entirely dependant on Orthodox Jewish halachic decision-making bodies and rabbis for their ruling, when they seek one, which is not often since Halacha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism. FrummerThanThou 08:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The nominator has clarified that the AfD nomination is based, not on a POV fork, but on a personal religious disagreement witht the subject of the article. The nominator wants this article deleted because he believes that "Halakha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism," and has gone so far as to clarify that he believes that articles on "decision-making bodies", such as the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, also "qualify for an extra speedy delete", not because they fail to meet WP:N, WP:V, or other legitimate Wikipedia policy criteria, but because the nominator personally disagrees with them on religious grounds. This is not a proper basis for invoking the AfD process. The integrity of the process should be preserved. If someone has a legitimate basis for an AfD, let that person nominate and provide a legitimate ground. --Shirahadasha 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: User:FrummerThanThou's blanket statements, such as :"Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling" and that they "are entirely dependant on Orthodox Jewish halachic decision-making bodies and rabbis for their ruling, when they seek one" reveal an utter lack of familiarity with the present-day Conservative movement and if anything only reveals the nominator's POV tilt (it's there if you know the issues well.) But it's all done by a kind of twisted faulty logic, which goes something like this: "Conservative Judaism uses Halakha like everyone else (meaning like the Orthodox, because the Reform don't use it at all) in that they 'rely' on the same (read: 'Orthodox') Halakhic books and rabbis in making decisions, which means that their 'Conservative Halakha' is really 'the same' as the standard (read: 'Orthodox') Halakha and should not be classed differently. Real-world issues and facts that the Conservatives dispute, such as accepting the Divine origins of the Torah, that it was given in its entirety by God to Moses at Sinai, the sanctity and observing the 613 mitzvot, and very up-to-date issues such as ordaining gay rabbis, are either not mentioned or overlooked, because, after all, the Conservatives do give official lip service to (read: 'Orthodox') "Halakha" even though as the Conservatives go about their lives in reality they neither respect nor practice any Halakha the way Orthodox Judaism does." The point here being, that one cannot at the same time do contrary functions: To claim absurdly that the Conservatives practice a Halakha that is also central to Orthodoxy at the same time that they (the Conservatives) openly and publicly break with the Halakah (as understood and practiced by Orthodoxy) and that is the very lifeblood Orthodoxy -- but not of Conservatism since they are not bound by the literal strictures of the Halakha and the Shulkhan Arukh (how many Conservatives even know what the Shulkhan Arukh is or means?) This is what is called a circular argument that underlies the faulty premise behind this nomination in the first place, and borders on a farce. IZAK 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Depends. It depends on what is on the Halakha page. On the one hand, it is a POV fork and violation of policy if the resulting Halakha page had only, or predominantly, the Orthodox POV and not all halakhic POVs represented equally and fairly. On the other hand, if the Halakha page described Halakha and fairly summarized Conservative, Orthodox, and any other points of view (with pointers to specific articles for more detail), then there certainly is enough material about Conservative Halakha to merit its own page, like Conservative Judaism and Conservative Responsa. EqualsMCSquared 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• How about this: Merge the section "Specific Jewish-law decisions" to Conservative responsa, merge "Jewish observance in the context of Conservative Halakha" into Conservative Judaism, merge "Differences from Orthodox theology" into Committee on Jewish Law and Standards or Halakha. The title Conservative responsa is better than Conservative Halakha for the bulk of the material since it only refers to responsa that are rejected by Orthodox Judaism. This avoids all of problems of the overlap between Conservative and Orthodox Halakha. Any objections? Jon513 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and then Rename this article Conservative Judaism religious practice and redirect Conservative Halakha to it. This was the solution for Messianic Halakha where it was voted to redirect it to Messianic religious practice. How do the Conservatives observe Halakha? How many keep the Shabbat? Or observe Kashrut strictly? And now the movement has voted to officially accept gay rabbis [1] [2] [3] and to accept the same standards of Reform Judaism for patrilineal descent [4] [5] [6] The Conservatives have openly broken with classical Halakha repeatedly (redefining it as the occassion suits them) and therefore User:FrummerThanThou's assertions and this entire nomination make absolutely no sense whatsoever.IZAK 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is obvious from the above discussion, and particularly IZAK's comments, that Conservative Halaka is a different code than Orthodox Halaka, and that most people outside the Conservative branch of Judaism probably do intend Orthodox Halaka when they use the word Halaka. This proves the need for 2 separate articles. (There is also Reform H, let others say what they will). The two traditions have diverged, and one of them denies the legitimacy of the other--IZAK is not eccentric in saying this. But while he is entitled to his POV that only OH is legitimate, it is clearly a POV, and he has no right to try to impose it on a neutral encyclopedia. The name here can be shown to be what the movement itself uses, and that makes it the standard name.

I would use the name "Halaka" for the orthodox, traditional code. Not because it is necessarily the authentic code or tradition, for it is no business of WP to deny or affirm that. Rather, because when Halaka is used by itself outside Judaism, the traditional Halaka is what is intended and it is thus the standard name.

But two articles. It would otherwise be like discussing Australian and New Zealand Law in the same article. Considering the natureof this discussion, and the very intense religious meaning it has for many, I think i need to say that I haven't the least connection with any Jewish denomination. DGG 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DGG: Well put :-} IZAK 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I will reinstate my position as somewhat more neutral then before but still for a stead fast delete as apposed to a merge or rename. Shirahadasha has made me aware of a conservative rabbinical body I was previously unaware the role of in the Halachic field, but I have examined the article and its sources and am not swayed. I obviously can't nom this "halachic body" for deletion, since they seriously think themselves to be a halachic authority and made plenty of press releases which the press payed attention to which makes them notable in a crazy world. I still dont think, how ever crazy the world is, this body have established a Halachic doctrine that can call itself "Conservative Halacha". They have only made some rulings, allowances and decisions to keep their own boat afloat. It would take allot more off their behalf to establish a "Conservative halacha" then with their current activity.

Here is the definition of halcha according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

1. {often lowercase) the entire body of Jewish law and tradition comprising the laws of the Bible, the oral law as transcribed in the legal portion of the Talmud, and subsequent legal codes amending or modifying traditional precepts to conform to contemporary conditions.
2. A law or tradition established by the Halakhah.

What they would need to do in order to get their own Halacha is to reenact the revelation at Sinai. I don't need to rephrase my first claim when I nominated it, perhaps only to clarify which WP rule. respectfully, the comment above me is nonsense. Let me prove the point here! Vote delete if you agree. frummer 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)