Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Halakha

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[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)

comment I would like to rephrase my position. I go for Rename to Conservative view of Halakha. frummer 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Err Frummer, you can't come here six days after you have nominated this article for deletion and stake out a new "position" one day before the vote is about to be closed. Sorry, such antics are not appreciated. IZAK 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not one day before, if anything 5 days is just a minimum. frummer

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) Nominator has re-clarified and I believe nomination reflects a misunderstanding about Conservative Judaism's approach. --Shirahadasha 15:30, 15 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. frummer 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG we should have two separate articles and make it clear that "Orthdox Halachah" and "Conservative Halachah" are very different things. Now, one could argue that "Halachah" should maybe be renamed "Orthodox Halachah" however that would be a discussion issue on that page, not here. JoshuaZ 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• commentIn response to Frummer's revised posting, I comment:

It is a basic tenant of orthodox Judaism that there is only one Judaisim, and only one Halakah, and it is the one that they profess. Thus for them there can be no Conservative Halakah, or Conservative Judaism--the followers of these paths are heretics, though perhaps nearer to the true religion than Reform Halakah and Reform Judaism. The only people who believe this are Orthodox Jews. Whether or not they are in truth the only authentic tradition is a matter of faith. Conservative Judaism is quite clear that its traditions are equally old, are equally based on the same Revelation, and continue the tradition of earlier Jewish law--which, as Frummer knows very well and in more detail than I, has never been uniform.

His argument is a statement of purely religious point of view--and in what I fear is the most inappropriate form, within and without WP--not letting others have their say in their own words.

DGG 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the reasoning that DGG is giving (i.e. "its traditions are equally old") is precisely why there is no such thing as "Conservative Halakha". Both the Orthodox and Conservative movements believe that they are following the same body of laws. The difference lies in each movement's respective interpretation of those laws. There is no such thing as Orthodox Halakha or Conservative Halakha -- only Halakha. This is a fundamental tenet of the Conservative movement. I stand by my original vote to rename. --DLand^TALK 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I second you DLand, also DGG claim that Conservative Judaism's traditions are "equally old" to Orthodox Judaism and "equally based on the same Revelation", and "continue the tradition of earlier Jewish law" are unfounded. The term "Conservative" in relation to Conservative Judaism has actualy nothing to do with "conserving", traditional Jewish beleif and Halakha. They are a secular denomination with no interest in forming their own Halakhic doctrine. frummer 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Err Frummer: Your above comments (such as "They are a secular denomination with no interest in forming their own Halakhic doctrine") are a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (By the way, it's also a lie to say things that are false.) Thanks. IZAK 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment My prior vote for Keep still stands, but given the general desire to merge or rename, if a merge is to be the outcome of this AfD, I believe the best place to merge would be Conservative responsa. The article title "Conservative responsa" acknowledges that the Conservative decision-making process is based on a different philosophy which in an important minority of cases results in different outcomes from the Orthodox approach, while sidestepping questions of the meaning of those differences. Whether Conservative Halakha is "the same" as Orthodox Halakha in some philoophical sense, Conservative responsa, the records and products of the decision-making process, are acknowledged as being different in a way that appears to be less controversial. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think merging it to Conservative view of Halakha or Conservative responsa would be more suitble then its current title, yes. frummer 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.