Template talk:Juddom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Too controversial 2 Goal of this template 2.1 Response to above comments 2.2 Rationale 2.3 Counter-response to Tomer

[edit] Too controversial

This is a very crude POV template. What's "Juddom"? Is this a joke? We are still a way off from April Fool's Day you know! How on Earth can a template claim "neutrality" if the entire universe of Judaism is deemed to be a "class" of "sects"? If you would like to create Template:Hasidism or Template:Hasidic Judaism (since that seems the main focus here, seems to me) that would be great, but you can't class them with non-Halakhic movements. This template is crazy and would just clog up the works. We already have Template:Jew which is quite enough. IZAK 13:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is overdoing it. The template seems to suggest a system that isn't there. Shall we put this on TFD? Perhaps the Hasidic Judaism section alone has merits. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Laughing out loud, what is reform doing under the Rabbinic Judaism section? ems 16:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomer wrote at his first edit that this is a "template idea". I am certain it is meant for debate and would encourage to include him in the discussion. gidonb 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, coming from a very different perspective from IZAK's, I had almost exactly the same first impression. There is a Template:Hasidic Judaism dying to break out of this; not much of the rest strikes me as particularly useful. - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not laughing at all. What in the world is "Juddom"??? Who is so interested in classifying Judaism down to the fingernails with "alternative Judaism" ideas such as paganism? I recommend a speedy delete. Yoninah 21:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think those calling for speedy deletes are being a little too harsh, judgemental and, frankly, POV. Yes, ems, Reform Judaism is Rabbinic, you just don't agree with who they call rabbis. Primarily, they consider the Talmud a major text for law and study, but do not see its judgements and the derived codifications of law as binding to all persons in all ages. But they definitely have a Rabbinic legal structure as compared with Karaites, Sadducees, etc. And there's little room for disagreement there. I don't know what the name "Juddom" is meant to mean- whether it's a cut down from "Judaic denominations" or something, but I do see some merit in the collection of this information in some summary form as it is. I don't recognise its usefulness as a template, as some of the placement of the data seems rather arbitrary, and criteria for inclusion is hard to define. I think, yes, finer granularity would be useful here: not just a template for Hassidic sects, but it may also be sensible to include a similar template on Sadducees, Pharisees, etc. for second temple divisions; maybe one for modern divisions would also be useful. Many of these could link back to Jewish denominations, but together in one template there is just too much mess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnothman (talk • contribs).

I'll comment soon about the feedback thus far, some of it, IMHO, sounds like it was spawned by the same arak as was suggested as the cause of my having come up with this hairbrained scheme. As gidonb points out (and a bit of thought, rather than irrational hyperventillating would have made a bit more evident), this is a template idea...and its imperfect name, as jnothman astutely notices, is a highly contracted form of Judaism denominations. Tomer^talk 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomer: Via alliteration, the "d-dom" in "Juddom" sounds ominously too much like "damn" or "dumb," or perhaps even as an abbreviation of "domination" or "dominatrix." As for "Judd-" why do I keep on thinking of "The Judds"  ? IZAK 08:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that names are important, but IMHO in this case the title is not the problem: it can be easily renamed and the readers don't even see it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Humus: Obviously my objections are not based on the names of this template (although in the past, you'd be surprised, a number of people complained that the "JewHist" template sounded too "discriminatory" or something like that.) The real problem here is that by making the various branches and types of Jews in all of Jewish history into a collection of so-called "sects" that have no basis in Jewish or general scholarship, religious or secular -- or at least there is no universal agreement on this subject, even though templates are easy to create -- a false picture is created of a situation that does not exist anywhere except in the template-maker's imagination. A subject like this needs to be treated with greater care and attempts at squeezing even every vaguely-Jewish groups that ever existed into a small "shoe", with the template serving as the "shoe-horn", must be avoided. IZAK 11:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Like many here, I think some of the individual sections would make fine templates in their own right, but I don't think there is any benefit in having this large number of items grouped together in this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goal of this template

Alright, let me start out by clarifying, once again, that this is a template idea, so far it's not even a proposal, just an idea. I appreciate that so many people are interested, but I think a great many of the above comments are misguided: they seem to be arguments in opposition to something that just simply isn't there. In light of that let me first address those comments:

[edit] Response to above comments

• "Too controversial" : IZAK says the template is "too controversial, but never says precisely what the controversy is. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Crude" ("imperfect"?) : As a template idea, I don't find the accusation of "crudeness" to be particularly productive. A lot of very good articles and templates have developed out of some rather "bad" beginnings. That's one of the marvels of the wikiworld. Kibbitzing is for the print and broadcast media. Here, you have the ability to fix it yourself. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Crude" ("obscene"?) : If this is what was meant by "crude", I require further information. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• POV : Nothing about the template is POV, as, as yet, it's still a template idea. While I did put a lot of work into making it look nice, and have a basic rationale for its organization (which I'll get into later), until it's actually "finished" and presented as a proposal, accusations of POV are misplaced, and until it's actually placed into article space, irrelevant. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Name "Juddom" : As a template idea, that the silly name (meant to save time for lazy typists like me) should be generating any serious comment (especially to the extent of opposition to the template itself being aroused because of the name) is, in a word, ridiculous. The first advice that comes to mind is, "Get a grip." Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Judaism is reduced to a "class" of "sects" : I'm not sure what this means, but if it means what I think it does, hopefully my explanation of my rationale behind what I regard as the "usefulness" of this template will address this concern. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Template:Hasidic_Judaism (etc.) : I have no opposition to a Hasidic_Judaism template, but there is most definitely no such template dying to burst out of this one. It's not such a bad idea, but all that's listed here are Hasidic dynasties (and then, with the exception of the Kotzkers [hint hint, someone should really write that article], only those with articles). Making a template on that basis would be a singularly pointless exercise, since I found the articles for that section of the template by looking at Category:Hasidic Judaism. If such a template restricted itself to simply listing Hasidic groups, it would be much less useful than the category from which I took the dynasties I listed. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• You can't class Hasidic Judaism with non-Halakhic movements. This is a complete straw man. If you want to talk about the de/merits of classifying Hasidic Judaism with non-Halakhic movements, fine. Do it somewhere where such a discussion is relevant. That's not here. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Crazy" : ^{[citation needed]} Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Clog up the works" : In what way? Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "Template:Jew ... is quite enough" : IZAK has used this argument elsewhere on numerous occasions to back his opposition to other templates and template ideas. While he's certainly entitled to his opinion, clearly it is not universally held. Template:Jew, as it happens, is quite bloated, and what's more, in trying to cover too much, misses too much. That's why {{Jewish language}} and several other templates have already been broken out of it. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Template suggests a system that isn't there : What system, precisely, does it suggest? Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• LOLing about the reform being listed in the Rabbinic Judaism section : And, In your incredibly scholarly NPOV mind, where should the reform be listed instead, ems? Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Template idea meant for discussion : actually, this wasn't meant to be opened up for "debate", or "discussion" yet, that was IZAK's idea. Now that it is tho, may as well jump in with both feet. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Usefulness : Joe, it wasn't meant to be useful to you. A template on the moons of Mars isn't very useful to me. A template showing the genetic relation of North Marquesan to Chamorro isn't very useful to me. When I write on Judaism, however, I'm usually not writing for you, nor you for me. If we were the only two people reading WP, indeed, if those of you who have participated in this harranguing so far were the sum total of WP readership, then I'd agree with you that it wouldn't be particularly useful. The fact of the matter is, millions (tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions) of readers out there have no idea about any of the articles in the template. More on this later in my "rationale" tho... Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Failure to laugh at the name "Juddom" : Who cares? It wasn't meant to be funny. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Classification of Judaism down to the fingernails : How could I have forgotten the fingernails? I'll hafta remember them next time. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Fingernails = "Alternative Judaism" : If that was the assertion being made by the "fingernails" reference, I'm befuddled. You can't on the one hand claim the template is POV and on the other claim that it's bad because it includes all POVs. Please review WP:NPOV again. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete request : On what basis? Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Judds : Country music = evil! TIA.  :-) Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• {{JewHist-stub}} : Some people are just hypersensitive. They have a right to their POV, no matter how misinformed. Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• "False picture is created of a situation that does not exist anywhere except in the template-maker's imagination." : This is not the first time IZAK has attributed some sort of ideology he disagrees with to me. I have no better idea what he's referring to with this particular assertion than when he's made similar bizarre statements (some of which seem to be based in a penchant for denigrating academics) in the past. (viz. e.g., [1]) Tomer^talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale

<more to come>

[edit] Counter-response to Tomer

Tomer: Please note that some very distinguished editors have fully agreed with me: JFW: "This is overdoing it" and Eliezer agrees; ems: "Laughing out loud, what is reform doing under the Rabbinic Judaism section?" Jmabel: agrees "Funny, coming from a very different perspective from IZAK's, I had almost exactly the same first impression." Yoninah says quite bluntly: "What in the world is "Juddom"??? Who is so interested in classifying Judaism down to the fingernails with "alternative Judaism" ideas such as paganism? I recommend a speedy delete." And some others are sceptical, just willing to give you only a little benefit of the doubt. So kindly don't even think of creating an impression that I am expressing some lone isolated sentiment here because I am clearly not! And now for some specific feedback for you, categorically:

1. It's "too controversial" because you originally called this template "Jewish Sects" [2] and as I said: "How on Earth can a template claim "neutrality" if the entire universe of Judaism is deemed to be a "class" of "sects"?..." After my objections you changed the name of this template to a more euphemistic but no less problematic word "Divisions in Judaism" [3] as if to make it appear that Judaism is nothing but a mass of "divisions" which it is not! There is only one Judaism (just as there is only one God and one Torah, just human perceptions may differ, but Judaism is a not equal to mere "Divisions".) So "Divisions in Judaism" is an oxymoron making Judaism appear to be a victim of Schizophrenia. Jewish denominations is nice, and that is what the title is based on and is trying to utilize, but the word "denominations" only applies in a modern sense and cannot be applied retroactively, to, say, the House of Shammai and Hillel which as you note in the template are "Great Houses" (whatever that is? "Houses"? "Towers"? "sky-scrapers"?) and are not "denominations"! So your whole construct is messed up from the get-go.
2. I stated that "This is a very crude POV template" because as I am already showing, this template is trying to do the impossible by stacking up articles about subjects that are not related chronoligically either in their own eras or compared to subsequent eras. For example, the subjects in the template's first sub-division: "Judaism; portal; Fundamentals; Interrelations; Schisms; Jews and Judaism", how are these "Divisions"? These are more "Introductions". Does, for example, Fundamentals go against Schisms? etc. The whole set-up is crude (in the sense of "raw material", not processed) and confusing.
3. The template is most certainly POV if it seeks to present Judaism as a mass of "sects/divisions" which is not the only way to interpret Judaism. There are other perspectives that could aspire to present a view of Judaism that is less splintered and difuse.
4. "Juddom" was a bad choice of name! You can be more self-conscious about choosing names, you may have to name a kid one day :-} so have mercy! I was very carefull when I chose the name for {{Jew}} and {{Israelis}}. By creating a "no-sense" (nonsense?) name for this template it raises eyebrows, to think well why did he do this? To hide something? To name the indescribable? Like Rosemary's Baby which was actually about the birth of a "little Devil" -- not much of a real human baby! Something like psychobabble hiding other motives or pushing aside a clearer reality.
5. Why don't you understand what "Judaism is reduced to a "class" of "sects"..." means? It's written in good English, and from my responses so far there is enough to answer your puzzlement/s. This template strongly flirts with Wikipedia:No original research.
6. So if you agree that "Template:Hasidic_Judaism" has merits, then no doubt it will come to pass soon... what's the problem?
7. "You can't class Hasidic Judaism with non-Halakhic movements. This is a complete straw man..." no it's not a "strawman" and it cuts to the chase here: Why are you making a Cholent out of elements that have no chronological connection under a falacious title? What's the connection between "Historic groups" of Sadducees and Essenes with the "Hasidism" sub-section? It's not clear if any are connected and if one flowed from the other. Mish-mash groupings without an context for the reader to follow.
8. I stated that "This template is crazy" because it was first called "Jewish Sects" which is a very crazy name for something that wants to convey, presumably, a positive over-view of various (latterly renamed) "Divisions in Judaism". So tell me, how do "Jewish Sects" become "Divisions in Judaism" when both are based ONLY on ONE article: Jewish denominations? Crazy, no?
9. "Clog up the works" because you tend to love creating templates for Jews and Judaism subjects don't you think?
10. Yeah man: Template:Jew ... is quite enough !
11. "Template suggests a system that isn't there : What system, precisely, does it suggest?" Don't you read your own words, it first suggested that "Jewish" = the sum of all "Sects" within it, and with it' latest name it's name implies that "Judaism" = the sum of all its "Divisions", now that does suggest a POV system (look up "system": "... an assemblage of related elements comprising a whole, such that each element may be seen to be a part of that whole in some sense. That is, each element is seen to be related to other elements of and/or the whole system. It is generally recognized that while any element of a system need not have a (direct) relationship with any other particular element of a system, any element which has no relationship with any other element of a system, cannot be a part of that system." (Wikipedia) ) The template thus "suggests" what is not there and has never been there.
12. Reform Judaism is connected to the Sadducees and to Christian Protestantism but of course there is no way your template could convey this.
13. All talk pages are for discussions.
14. "False picture is created of a situation that does not exist anywhere except in the template-maker's imagination." : "This is not the first time IZAK has attributed some sort of ideology he disagrees with to me. I have no better idea what he's referring to with this particular assertion than when he's made similar bizarre statements (some of which seem to be based in a penchant for denigrating academics) in the past." Oh come on Tomer, no crying please, let the academics defend themselves, but they have no right acting as the spokespersons for Judaism! Let them stick to writing articles, books and be talking heads on TV but Judaism relies on the Torah and on Torah scholars to "sell itself" and that is how it has flourished and survived for millenia. Creating "witty" templates on Wikipedia should be handled with great care.

I have not responded to most of your reactions to the other editors. Best wishes, IZAK 07:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)