Talk:Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article name 2 Critique of article 3 core/current vs. regional/historical 4 Trust 5 Unsourced material 6 Synthesis/Original Research 6.1 Examples of Type I 6.2 Examples of Type II 6.3 Examples of Type III 6.4 Examples of Type IV 7 Bibliography and sources 8 Liberal Values, Response to Tradition and POV/OR/SYNTH/UNDUE 8.1 False trichotomies 8.2 Response to Tradition: WP:SYNTH, WP:POV 8.3 Liberal values 9 outside comment

[edit] Article name

The name of this article will undoubtedly require further discussion. For the time being, I would appreciate it if folks could comment here on the title, rather than Move it, and proposed a Requested Move if desired. Meanwhile, I've also set up the redirect Beliefs and practices in Progressive Judaism, which would also be a good name if we end up with 'progressive' umbrella terminology.

Briefly, I chose this title because of my sense that the "reform movement" might be the best way to describe the movement. I wanted to avoid "Reform Judaism" because of the inherent USA focus. I thought "Beliefs and practices in the reform movement (Judaism)" or "of Judaism" might be awkward, but they're fine alternatives, too. Also wanted to focus on early reform (liberal) thought, which sets up some of the core principles and religious practice dynamics that shaped subsequent developments. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of article

I appreciate the attempt at naming, but naming is *not* the issue here. A development of a well organized, accurate, unbiased presentation of material is. What we have here

• disrupts a carefully constructed outline under development in Progressive Judaism that was meant to be rebuilt verified line by line.
• separates the citations supporting the outline structure from the outline itself
• interpolates the material with other material that had been marked due to WP:SYNTH and WP:V without first cleaning up the material. In doing so, the clean-up process is all the more difficult, though I admit we at least now have a good categorization of what was mushed up together in the Reform Judaism SYNTH section.
• mixes up intellectual history with a horizontal exploration of ideas now current - I can see why you might have thought that a history was the intent (e.g. the outline that moved from Kant to Borowitz) of my outline, but it wasn't - it was meant to illustrate two ends of a polarity. The progressive Judaism article desperately needs a description of the range of core beliefs that are "currently" shared across regions and that was the intent of the section in Progressive Judaism.
  • A description of current belief describes the range and explains their relationship to core values of a community (with citations of course). The concept of "polarities" used by Meyer is shared by many other thinkers about modern day progressive Judaism. It has nothing to do with "liberal values". A polarity contains both liberal and conservative values - that is why it is a polarity.
  • An intellectual history on the other hand describes what beliefs arose when and what external influences affected their development. Your paragraph about liberal values could be used (with citation of course) in a historical context to explain why 19th century Jews valued change and autonomy so greatly, but it isn't really relevant to a discussion of polarities or current beliefs.
  • Narrative in text section: historical - belongs in German Reform movement (Judaism), but needs to be substantially changed. Some of this is simply incorrect, the rest is an over-simplification.
  • Response to Tradition - belongs in history, but not discussion of contemporary ideas
  • Nationhood - also historical and as regards Zionism - biased - there was more than one viewpoint.
  • Practice and place - also historical - there is no current uniformity on the name for synogogues, nor observance, nor balance between public and private religion, etc. The bullet items in the original outline on Progressive Judiasm had nothing to do with this stuff. They instead were intended to work through various thinkers on prayer that shape the current private and public liturgical experience of Progressive Jews. Again meta-framework, NOT litany of who does what.
• vitiates the Progressive Judaism article. "Progressive Judaism" is first and foremost a set of beliefs. The organizations associated with it are by-products of those shared beliefs, not the ikar (central idea). In the case of Progressive Judaism, the beliefs are particularly defining because:
  • Progressive Jews have no standard practice (like the Orthodox), so they rely on their philosophical and theological principles to tie them together.
  • At the very least Progressive Judaism needs to contain a description of each of the core polarities and the approach to God,Torah,Israel (the classic Jewish threesome).
  • If there is a lot of material, for each topic (and there will be), we'll create separate articles for each level three title. That will take care of any WP:LENGTH or congestion issues.
  • Note: I do see now, HG, that you were trying to get a feel for how everything fits together and that would have been hard to do with some material in one place and the rest in another.

• disrupts an attempt to describe the non-region dependent common core by inserting material that is region specific:
  • the inserted SYNTH material contains an undifferentiated synthesis of general and regionally specific information.
  • Zionism section - as written only describes the USA and belongs there - attitudes towards Zionism pre-state of Israel were by no means consistent - in the world wide community there were people on either end and in 1928 when the WUPJ had its first biennial they actually left Zionism out of the discussions it was so divisive. One of the problems with the old material is that it treated local positions as monolithic. There is a core of meta-issues that affect the progressive debate about zionism - only these belong in a core article. However, they are not discussed in the sections that you have included. (HG, I meant to leave a note about this when I moved the section, but it was time for my husband and I to go out for our evening walk)
  • Who is a Jew - Again not a defining core topic - the section you copied describes the USA position and needs to be expanded. UK also has a patrilineal descent position, BUT it has a different story behind it and so is also regional. The perception of it being defining for Progressive Judaism is probably a reflection of the way US Reform dominates orthodox (and possibly non-Jewish) thinking about the movement as a whole.
  • Differences in region - obviously doesn't belong in an article about core shared beliefs.

• adds uncited material and/or synthesis:
  • Bibliography is interesting - but can you please provide a source for them. A good bibliography is itself an academic achievement - it is important to give credit for it unless you constructed it yourself from your own research. Also - if you'd like to collect sources, I think it might be better to put them into separate articles. I'm not comfortable listing sources that haven't actually been used in creating the article. It gives a false impression of the extent of research.
  • "Liberal principles"? - see point above about nature of polarities
  • Polarities not in belief and thought? - seems to me the imposition of an orthodox perspective. From the progressive point of view the polarities you have put into "liberal principles" are viewed as profoundly Jewish and not as some non-jewish insertion. The do stand above God/Torah/Israel but only as a meta-system (same as epistomology "stands above" science and defines the scientific method). However, it is assumed by much of progressive jewish theology that the struggle to find the correct balance across the polarities is itself a sacred act and responsiblity - the fundamental mitzvah that defines all the others.
  • The bit about amelioration etc.... not at all true. There is still a wide range of opinion. Also ameliorate means "to make sweeter" - i.e. a value judgement - not exactly NPOV.
• does not take into account in choosing the name, ignored the verifiable observation that Reconstructionism is part of the progressive Judaism, but not part of US Reform or UK Reform or Dutch Liberal or German Liberal/Progressive, etc. The common core also needs to cover that movement.

IMHO, The decision to break out beliefs and practices into a separate article *might* be valid at a later point in time. This break-up was premature:

• Progressive Judaism does not *yet* violate WP:LENGTH
• the individual sections here were not yet mature enough for us to determine whether (a) to put all material on beliefs into a single article or (b) to put each level three heading into a separate article. There are arguments for each approach and they should have been made as a group among the active editors.
• You had an editor (me) who had explicitly stated that a spin-off was not the way to go unless the synthesis material was first fixed (which in this case meant refactoring it to appropriate locations, not merging it into yet a bigger mess). Egfrank 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And least you try to argue that User:Egfrank, User:A Sniper, and User:Jheald acted unilaterally so you can too. Please note: the proposal to refactor Reform Judaism was discussed for a week and we all waited to take action until that point even though the consensus was apparent within 24 hours. If you had objections, nothing stopped you from adding them to the discussions. Egfrank 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did the best I could in starting to deal with the old Reform Judaism material, either by weeding/editing or by tagging, though of course it still needs work by me or anyone. I thought some of my restructuring would be constructive, such as differentiating the principles/tensions, the beliefs and the practices. I wanted to bring the material together so we're not editing two separate sets of texts in different articles, several topics overlap and I hoped it'd easier to delete or fix the Reform stuff in the context of an integrated piece. Once it's integrated (or deleting what's unhelpful from the old, etc), I don't think it's difficult to un-spinoff the text and put it back into the Progressive Judaism piece as appropriate. I apologize for any edits that weren't good. You also may be right, if I catch your drift, that it's better to do the regional-specific material at the end, but my sense would be to try to work in into the narrative flow of each topic. So, if there's a section on say egalitarianism / gender etc., explain the common core (that's a nice way to put it) and then right afterwards (within the same section) describe the variations, which may be regional or may simply be makhloqet within a movement. I wouldn't assume that readers would be most interested in regional variations here (maybe they can find those in the regional articles) because they may also prefer our unpacking analytically the diversity of approach within each topic. I can see you're pretty displeased with my effort, so I hope this is at least partly responsive. HG | Talk 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see that now. This is tough stuff. I'm actually glad you mixed this up, it forced me to clarify some things I might have otherwise assumed without note:

• belief rather than action as the unifying force in Progressive Judaism
• polarities define a meta-framework for understanding God, Torah and Israel

They are OR observations, of course, but it doesn't hurt to keep them in the background.

[edit] core/current vs. regional/historical

Getting back to business we have two important pairings to keep in straight and provide adequate coverage:

• core --- regional
• history --- present

What I'd like to do to clean this up is:

1. move the core and regional stuff out of here, leaving only the history:
   • core + regional diff section back to Progressive Judaism:
   • absolutely region specific stuff to respective articles
2. sort through the history that is left and move anything that applies pre-1870ish to German Reform movement

1. take a look at what is left and discuss what to do with it

How does that sound to you? Egfrank 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to keep the core here, because it applies to both Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism as currently constructed. (I still don't quite know what you all want to do with these two articles.) In terms of the regions, I think you may be over-emphasizing the denomination-level decisions and not thinking about how we will/should eventually describe the diversity of thought among notable progreflib thinkers, regardless of their institutional affiliation. Sure, any long discussion of denominational decisions can be allocated there, but an article/section on Jewish beliefs shouldn't leave out the range of reform views on Jewish identity and marriage/gender. Arguably, reform Jewish thought is better reflected by describing some coherent thinkers than the compromises of regional "belief" decisions. In terms of history, I think we should do that on a topic-by-topic basis. In ethics, e.g., I don't want to make readers jump from article to article to sort out the historical narrative and the development of key principles/methods. (Generally, I'm skeptical that anything can be described ahistorically and, even if we wanted to, how would we choose the reliable source to provide us with an ahistorical snapshot?) HG | Talk 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is proposing "compromises of regional belief decisions?". No such animal exists. I couldn't write it even if I wanted to. The whole point of pluralism is - well pluralism. Thus a description of core beliefs is a description of a range of beliefs within a verifiable framework - e.g. polarities mentioned by Meyer and others.

Historical vs. current - historical studies of belief generally focus on the development of belief in relation to other contemporary beliefs and the environment. Theological or philosophical expositions focus on the relationship between the beliefs themselves - what makes them harmoneous, what makes them in tension. These are two very different questions and one can't do them at the same time. They don't even belong in the same academic disciplines (history vs. philosophy/theology/religion).

The Progressive Movement article Belief and practices section describes a group of entities with a common current belief system. It was never intended to cover history. Hence the focus in that article needs to be the theological and philosophical relationship between varieties of belief. If you look at the Progressive Judaism article, you may note that the article had two sections: "Beliefs and practices" and "Intellectual history" - I put in those separate topics a while ago just to address the point made in the last paragraph.

The focus of this article, by contrast appears to be the development of each of the different beliefs, some of which survived to the present (and some of which didn't). If you wanted to turn this into an article exploring (with cited material) how the different regional movements interacted theologically and philosophically I'd be all for it. We have a historical article for the early German period, but the late 19th century and 20th century doesn't have a history of reform movement thought article. This could be it. We can then have the Progressive Judaism#Intellectual history section point to this article.

So here is the challenge: I know you don't like the idea of a separate philosophical/theological article, but if I go create it, are you planning to edit war if I put material back into Progressive Judaism? If so, I strongly suggest we go together to mediation. If you are unwilling, I will initiate it unilaterally. Egfrank 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trust

Another point about keeping the core here -- part of our problem has been a breakdown in trust, I think mutual (i.e., on both sides). Regardless of my other concerns, one advantage of the spin-offs you (and now we) have made is that they create a kind of shared or neutral territory in which to edit some key features of either/both Prof and Reform movements. So, until the dispute over naming and the 2 parent articles gets resolve, I think it's much better for trust-building to keep the core here and let us collaborate in a space outside the disputed parent pieces. HG | Talk 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

HG - I can't work with the material here - I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible. This isn't something I can edit. It is fine as a way of collating material or as a scratch pad to gain understanding - it is a mess otherwise. Please read above again - perhaps you didn't notice that the criticisms had been greatly expanded in detail re: history vs. current, core vs. region. As for trust-building, a unilateral edit like this (without the week we gave everyone before the refactoring) is *not* the way to build trust. I'm sorry that you are unable to see this. Egfrank 06:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

Hi again. I think on my Talk you again mentioned the unsourced synthesized material. Now I realize that I should mention that I don't think that's how I'd describe the problem. Unsourced material is only a problem if it either can't be verified or if it's challenged, and sourcing is requested. And synthesis isn't a problem unless it's slanted to make an argument; after all, encyclopedias are in the business of synthesizing. Some of the material was slanted and I think we can work thru it fairly readily. Some of the material is useful and can provide useful text until we do better ourselves. HG | Talk 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely in the gradualist school, but I still think pro-active citing and avoidance of synthesis is important - it shouldn't wait - to do high quality work we need to be our first challengers. Also citing is a way of saying thanks to the people who have given us the ideas to write. It is important IMHO to give credit where credit is due. Also, this topic is inherently controversial - there are lots of people that get very uncomfortable whenever Progressive Judaism is portrayed in a positive light, however justified. Egfrank 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In my writing, I aim for a neutral albeit charitable description and not nec a positive light. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by synthesis. I would distinguish the lead-in(s) to the detailed body of a section. The lead-in can be a more catchy recap (aka synthesis) to be sourced and fleshed out below, If I write the lead-in first, it's a rough guess of what I expect to come. Credit absolutely should be given but I'd do it in the body, not the lead-in pieces (though I'm old-fashioned and can accept Sources w/o excessive fnotes, I think WP culture is shifting to far into over-citation due to disputes and credibility concerns). HG | Talk 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Positive here means a neutrally reported thing that just happens to be positive in meaning or content.

Example: "X's work won the Nobel Prize". If Joe doesn't thinks X is stupid, Joe may demand proof in the hopes of removing a statement that contradicts Joe's belief that X is stupid.

Similarly, consider this statement:"Progressive Jews believe they are trying to live a torah life". This is a neutral statement - it does not endorse the belief - it merely states a fact about Progressive Jews. Now suppose Joe thinks that Progressive Jews don't care about Torah. This statement will contradict his understanding of the world. Therefore he will challenge it and demand a citation. Hope that helps. Egfrank 09:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Leadin paragraphs don't need to be credited unless

• they are a paraphrase of someone else's work (e.g. a paragraph lifted from an essay or book, even a GPLD'd one). To do otherwise is Plagiarism
• there is no supporting evidence below the lead in, e.g. a summary without a lead-in. If the "summary" has no cited material which it summarizes it ceases to be a summary. It is an assertion like any other and can be challenged by WP:V.

Hope that helps, Egfrank 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis/Original Research

In answer to your question in the section above "I'm not sure what you mean by synthesis", Wikipedia's policy on synthesis is here: WP:SYNTH. Basically a synthesis is one of four things:

1. A collection of statements or assertions that can be individually verified, but taken as a whole create a misleading impression or understanding of a subject. In Wiki land this kind often has WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV problems as well.
2. An unpublished conclusion drawn from a collection of statement or assertions that can be individually verified. Even if the conclusion is true, the result will still be considered OR/SYNTH if you can't prove that someone else has published that exact same conclusion in a verifiable source.
3. A summary or redaction of a source that in some way misrepresents the source. As most redactions require some judgement calls of what to leave in and what to leave out, summaries fall into a grey area of WP:SYNTH
4. A generalization - any generalization reflects a possibly disputable analysis of multiple (verifiable) facts and hence is synthesis. Egfrank 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As regards this article -

[edit] Examples of Type I

• Liberal Values - Polarities: the grouping of Meyer's 3 polarities under the heading of "Liberal values" represents an undocumented type I synthesis. Your only source for polarities so far is Meyer (on the Progressive Judaism page) and Meyer does not draw this conclusion. To support this arrangement of material you are going to need to find a source that (a) mentions these polarities and (b) defines liberal values as you have and (c) states that the polarities are an expression of the liberal values. I think that is going to be hard to do because as I said above - the liberal values are only one side of these polarities. The polarities are about the tension between liberal and traditional values. Polarities, by definition, need two poles. Egfrank 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If I grok you, the term liberal values is ok, but you've suggested organizing the section based on Meyer's polarities. I'm not sure we necessarily need to hold by Meyer to present progressive/reform thought, but it sounds splendid for now. (As a matter of policy, though, I'd again say that it's not such a problematic synthesis because it's not misleading or intended to mislead.) Maybe a section heading like "The tension between liberal and traditional values" or simply "Between liberal and traditional values"? HG | Talk 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The term liberal values is in fact the problem, especially used as a heading distinct from Jewish values and beliefs. (see below) Egfrank 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...not hold by Meyer to present Progressive/Reform thought? I think you are going to have to explain that one (with citations). On what basis? He is (a) on the falculty of HUC and teaches their rabbinical students - that should create a certain presumption (b) I know of *no* source that would concievably justify the claim that he did not understand Progressive/Reform thought. (c) His understanding is consistent with many other sources within the Progressive/Reform movement. Egfrank 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I only meant that we may want to integrate the thinking of other historians of the movement, besides Meyer, so we don't want to be rigid about using Meyer's framework, right? HG | Talk 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you completely - although Meyer's observation that a dynamic range of beliefs around polarities is something of the zeitgeist of the moment. And not because of Meyer - it is just that Reform/liberal/progressive Judaism is a moving target. And as the worldwide community draws closer together our regional differences are more in your face so we need a model that helps us understand our own pluralism. That's my take at least, but I suspect if I look hard enough I'll find more than one person who has said the exact same thing in print. Egfrank 04:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Type II

• Jewish belief and thought - Lead in: "As a community of religious entreprenuers"... (Type II): its catchy, but can you show that their motivations were/are in fact similar to entreprenuers? How are you defining entreprenuer? I can actually provide a great deal of counter evidence to dispute that assertion, even if you only mean "someone who is innovative". In many cases the German reformers did not see themselves as innovating at all, but rather recovering past understandings and solutions (Meyer, Response to Modernity, 3-4).
• Jewish belief and thought - Lead in: "Reform beliefs tend to coalesce...for example" (Type II) - Neither statement is cited, nor is the connection between the two cited. Again there is a lot to dispute here. Reconstructionists do de-emphasize chosenness. On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of much of German and US non-reconstructionist thought has been the idea that Jews are a "light to the gentiles". Chosenness is in fact central to much (though not all) of the progressive Jewish world.
• Ethics and law: "Reform Judaism differentiated itself" (Type II) - A conclusion stated without citation. This sentence implies that ethical developments had something to do with the relationship to the orthodox. This statement is easily disputed. Focus on ethics were not a reaction to an internal group of Jews (orthodox or otherwise). Most sources attribute it to a variety of religious and secular sources: biblicism, kantian universalism (but only in the modern period). The situation is much more complicated once one includes post modern thought and progressive reformulations of the halakhic process.
• Torah and the interpretation of rabbinic process: "Based on these and other arguments...concluded non-normative" (Type II) - this is a conclusion that again is likely to be disputed. As far as *I* know, no one actually concluded that the halakhah was "non-normative" in a universal sense. My understanding of it is that there are two explanations
  • Epistomological challenges - the rise of Kant,Hume, Locke, etc caused some theologicals (e.g. George Levinson) to question how we "knew" that X was commanded by God. In the process they began to reinvent the framework that lead to belief (see German Reform movement (Judaism) for more info on Levinson. This lead to an increased belief in Jewish tradition as a work of the human mind rather than a divine revelation.
  • Historical Critical school - cf. Borowitz - Liberal Judaism/Renewing the covenent; Saul Leberman and others) is that the historical-critical school allowed a rereading of Jewish tradition that saw it in terms of a process of change. Looking at the evidence they concluded that halakhah only became normative sometime after the mishnaic period. If halakhah was normative for only a period of our Jewish history then it could become non-normative again - provided it fit the best interests of the Jewish people and our covenant with God.

The various reasons cited by this section only became relevant for religious thinkers after the conviction that halakhah was an optional norm developed.

Egfrank 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Feel free to edit the leads. I would like our article writing to sparkle, but if entrepreneur doesn't do it, that's fine with me. Likewise with the rest of my initial pass (your second comment). With ethics, you are spot on about the complex dynamics at play. I agree that there were both internal and external dialectical processes at work. How do you think we should word this for an opening, or would it be better to do the body first and leave the intro for later? (I'll need to think more about your argumentation regarding (non)-normativivity, meanwhile, I'm not wedded to the wording.)(Again, regarding synthesis policy, I'm not sure these statement nec apply. I'm not sure they're all conclusions, in the sense of an argued finding, but rather verifiable descriptions.) HG | Talk 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Type III

NA - not enough citations yet. Egfrank 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of Type IV

• Jewish belief and thought - Lead in: "Reform beliefs tend to coallesce... For example... " (Type IV):- Claims involving words like coalesce, "most", "many", etc. must be sourced. There is no way for a reader to verify that your main body contains a full representation of the range of ideas with no undue weight attached. Therefore, to make generalizations you must cite a WP:V reliable source who we can presume has a looked at the entire field and so is in a position to make a generalization.
• God in Jewish reform theology. (Type I/IV) Overgeneralization implied via context. Statements for one regional movement are presumed applicable to all. For example, you cite a theological understanding using the URJ and Pittsburg platform. This statement makes certain universalistic assumptions about religion and certain humanistic assumptions about where the God concept comes from. Regional groups are well known to differ strongly on the univeralistic-particularity and humanistic-divine dimensions. To use the Pittsburg Platform quote, you'll need to show that this particular universalistic-humanistic position is common to all movements. You certainly haven't done that by including only one citation.

Egfrank 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, I agree that further drafting of this section would be helpful to put quotes in context, and I welcome ideas for which sources to draw upon for describing the movement's (diverse) theology. HG | Talk 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography and sources

I'm wondering whether the bibliography should be divided topically in synch with some of the sections, e.g. progressive and reform ethics? Or will there be too many cross-over works? On the other hand, specialized works on, say, the history of certain practices might be lost in a single biblio list. HG | Talk 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(replying to Egfrank's q) The draft bibliography was drawn primarily from my own references database/software. A few scattered sources on the page were taken directly from secondary sources but I don't believe the sources need to be cited in these circumstances. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kol ha kavod. Egfrank 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Values, Response to Tradition and POV/OR/SYNTH/UNDUE

Egfrank to HG - sorry to be so harsh here - you really seem to want to gain an understanding of this material, however, there are IMHO *serious* problems with your basic framework. Here it goes...

[edit] False trichotomies

Spelling pedantry: I think that's trichotomy you want. Even if every time I see the word, it makes me think "haircut" (cf trichology) ! -- Jheald 10:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Egfrank 11:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article[1] 's use of separate sections to describe "Response to tradition", "Liberal Values" and "Jewish beliefs and thought" represents serious problems of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE.

The separation implies there is a distinction between "Jewish beliefs and practices" on one hand and on the other hand: (a) Reform/Progressive/Liberal Judaism's response to tradition and (b) liberal values. This point of view is embraced by some Orthodox Jews who see Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism as "non-Jewish" and may possibly be the personal point of view of the sole editor of this article User:HG[2].

However it is *not* embraced by the Reform/Liberal/Progressive Jews themselves who see their attitudes toward liberal values and tradition as part of an essentially Jewish response. In support of this statement, I bring the following quotes from the mission and belief statements of the Conservative Movement and various regional members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, all of which denominations are outgrowths of the "Reform movement in Judaism" (see Progressive Judaism#Relationship to Liberal and Reform Judaism):

• WUPJ speaking of the "liberal streams of Judaism": Their core values of pluralism, modernity, equality and social justice appeal to many who seek to incorporate precious Jewish tradition with contemporary lifestyles.[3]
• South Africa Union for Progressive Judaism: Progressive Jews believe that the Torah comes to us from God, but it is our task to apply its teachings to our times. Halachah (Jewish law), is not a static set of decisions made by past rabbis, but a vital process requiring continuing engagement with our core beliefs in the context of our current world. Individuals are responsible for developing a personal understanding of what God wants of them. This means Progressive Judaism emphasises education, requiring each person to engage with Jewish texts and traditions. In line with contemporary understanding, men and women are equal partners. There is no division of seating in our synagogues and women participate equally in services, including serving as rabbis.[4]
• Liberal Judaism, UK: To be a Jew is to be the inheritor of a religious and cultural tradition. To be a practising Jew is to accept with love and pride the duty to maintain and transmit that tradition. To be a practising Liberal Jew in the twenty-first century is to believe that tradition should be transmitted within the framework of modern thinking and morality; it is to live according to the prophetic ideal of doing justice, loving kindness and walking humbly with God.[5]
• Reform Judaism, UK:Reform Judaism is living Judaism. It is a religious philosophy rooted in nearly four millennia of Jewish tradition, whilst actively engaged with modern life and thought. This means both an uncompromising assertion of eternal truths and values and an open, positive attitude to new insights and changing circumstances. It is a living, evolving faith that Jews of today and tomorrow can live by.
• Reform Judaism, USA:Throughout our history, we Jews have remained firmly rooted in Jewish tradition, even as we have learned much from our encounters with other cultures. The great contribution of Reform Judaism is that it has enabled the Jewish people to introduce innovation while preserving tradition, to embrace diversity while asserting commonality, to affirm beliefs without rejecting those who doubt, and to bring faith to sacred texts without sacrificing critical scholarship.[6]

Each statement above illustrates that Progressive Jews, rightly or wrongly, believe that their response to both tradition and modern values is deeply Jewish. Although only the "Liberal Judaism, UK" quote mentions the prophets, additional quotes can be brought to illustrate that not all modern values are embraced but rather only those seen consistent with Jewish tradition, particularly the Jewish prophetic tradition. Thus even the acceptance of modernity is inseparable (in the minds of Progressive Jews) from their Jewishness.

In a neutral wiki article, all POVs must certainly be presented. However, outside critiques of a religious tradition belong in a criticism section. When an outside critique so dominates the article that it define its structure, the article suffers from violations of WP:UNDUE. Egfrank 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concern seems to assume that "liberal values" are juxtaposed against "Jewish beliefs" whereas I assumed that "liberal values" are simply some of the core/key (Jewish) values of the reform/progressive movement. So just retitle it "Liberal Jewish values" or whatever would help you avoid making that assumption. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No -- my objection is separating the discussion of the beliefs of Progressive Judaism into three separate sections. I think I was quite clear: I labelled this section "False tricotomies". The particular titles reflect an orthodox bias imposed upon the material. You still have not defined a reason for it, unless you mean the lead-ins of each section to be the explanation for why you have separate sections. In that case the breakup has lead you to write WP:OR intro paragraphs that are either (a) unverifiable(WP:V) original research(WP:OR) that can never be supported by citations (since it contradicts fact) or (b) is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE.

If you claim that the break-up reflects the orthodox POV, then we have problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. If you claim the break-up is *not* orthodox, then the only explanatory material we have is the lead-in paragraphs of each section which are WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:POV. Hence the entire break up is also WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:POV.

The only solution is to either (a) defend this organization with citations showing that Progressive thinkers have presented their belief in similar structures or (b) remove it and merge or delete the material in "Response to Tradition" and "Liberal values" to the appropriate section of "Jewish thoughts and beliefs". Take your pick. Egfrank 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since my personal views are immaterial (and hopefully unknown here), please delete your speculation above. I think your (false) assumptions have clouded your reading of the article and your charitable, good faith appreciation for my contributions here. Thank you. HG | Talk 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In theory they should be irrelevant, but because you are willing to write summaries and organize information, *before* you have done a real survey of the subject area (I mean college course level), you assumptions end up getting inserted into the text and into discussions. Without that survey you have nothing to go on but your assumptions. I'll agree, in the bit I've gotten to know you, I can see you move along with what you learn. It is your methods and how they affect your writing, that I object to HG, not your opinions, and not your potential (which I think is huge). Egfrank 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Tradition: WP:SYNTH, WP:POV

The contents of this section are consistent with the orthodox belief that Reform/Progressive Jews have rejected tradition for non-Jewish reasons, but again not at all consistent with how either historians or the progressive movement itself sees its response to tradition:

• it implies all tradition was rejected and asserts that the following beliefs were prevalent:
  • the bible is solely a human invention
  • biblical laws were rejected (killing a Sabbath violator, revenge homicide of Amelek)
  • rabbinical laws (kashrut) were rejected
  • non-Jewish customs were preferred over Jewish customs (pipe organs, clerical vestments)
• the reasons for the rejection were non-Jewish, i.e. reason for its own sake, elightenment sensibilities rather than Jewish sensibilities.

The list presents a pretty comprehensive picture of rejection - reason is more important than God; both the bible and rabbinic tradition are rejected. In fact, they aren't only rejected, foriegn customs are adopted in preference to "Jewish" ones.

This presentation is extremely one sided and biased towards the orthodox WP:POV. For example, the section makes no mention of the following items that are available in almost any summary of Progressive/Reform belief. It isn't like this information is hard to find:

• there was an increased respect for the biblical prophetic tradition
• the understanding of the revelatory process was changed to be in line with modern epistomology. This gave the human element an increased role, but that few if any excluded God entirely from the process.
• the bible as a moral and spiritual authority was never rejected
• a preference for interpretation that was closer to the biblical text (peshat) than traditional Rabbinic interpretation. This is not the same as rejecting either the bible or tradition in toto. In addition debates about peshat vs. drash exist in rabbinic literature.
• Noted scholars disagree with the claim that worship of reason ("religion of reason") was the reason behind the reforms. Instead they understand the various changes as an attempt to "clean house" and return to a better, purer, more educational Judaism. They believed that a non-sensical Judaism can hardly be edifying.
• The rabbinic tradition itself rejected killing people for violating Shabbat by attaching so many conditions on the command that it knocked it out of any practical use.
• Most of the commands that were "rejected" were done so out of the belief (correct or incorrect) that those commands violated Torah law at some deeper fundamental level. Painting them as a rejection of all tradition, begs the question of "what is tradition?" "who defines it?" - a question that Orthodox and non-Orthodox disagree violently on. The reformers would say that they were restoring parts of the tradition that 18th century rabbinic Judaism had rejected.

Most Progressive/Reform readers will insert the above points automatically as common knowledge, but wikipedia isn't written for them. They don't need this article. Wikipedia articles are written for people who aren't familiar with a topic and may not know what to fill in.

Possible sources for one or more items above:

• World Union for Progressive Judaism - has websites for each of the movements
• Progressive Judaism - has links to the statements of belief for each regional organization
• German Reform movement (Judaism) - has citations to articles and books about the early reform period (the period to which all items apply).
• Available from the library:
  • The Reform Movement in Judaism, Phillipson - contains detailed text of documents of the Reform movement up until 1930
  • Response to Modernity, Meyer - updated
  • Numerous articles available via Ramby
  • Liberal Judaism, Borowitz
  • Renewing the Covenant, Borowitz

In addition to bias, this section has WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE problems:

• WP:SYNTH (Type III) - It claims German Reform movement (Judaism) as its main article, but its summary misrepresents the content of that article.
• WP:UNDUE - you have stated that you want this to be the article describing current core beliefs. If that is the case, then what possible relevance does pipe organs and clerical vestments, Levendowski and Amalek have to do modern day progressive Jews - are there any belief statemetns that cite these? Is anyone creating break-away synagogues so that the can have pipe organs? wear clerical vestments? Placing this kind of material at the beginning of the article makes it seem like it defines the movement when in fact it does not, and never did (see previous point WP:SYNTH).

Egfrank 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that info should be added and any slanted statement deleted. Your 8 bullets points look pretty good. The article should give a balanced picture of what was rejected and what was conserved, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My 8 point bullets are uncited for the most part and writing an adequete narrative would take considerable time. As I said below, in my response to you in the previous section, we're trying to do too much here.

But more improtantly, this section is completely unnecessary. The "Rejection items" currently included have little relevance to modern Progressive Judaism... nobody studies them, nobody debates them, nobody reads them to make decisions about how they live their Jewish life, and if anyone knows them its probably in a college course on 19th century Jewish history. I'm a musician who loves Levandowski, but very few congregations sing his songs these days. Reform/Progressive worship has moved on - music is more folksy than grand, participatory rather than choral, and most congregations would choose Debbie Freidman and Shlomo Carlebach over Levendowski any day of the week.

To the extent that that the points currently covered in this section are history they are covered in the German Reform movement (Judaism) article. As for the positive items - if they involved the past, they are pretty well covered (or will be) when the German Reform movement article is complete. If they involve the present, "Response to tradition" is part of each and every Meyer polarity and both sides of the polarities at that. I'm not sure I understand the organizational value of separating it out. Best, Egfrank 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal values

This lead in quite simply makes no sense or is plain wrong:

The progressive Judaism of the 21st century has not picked up every challenge posed by early reformers to pre-modern Judaism, yet the core liberal themes continue to shape the movement. Specifically, the intense demands for reform have been modulated by contemporary concerns for continuity, the strict Kantian ideal of universalism has been couter-balanced with attention to the merits of Jewish particularism, and both practical and theological impetus for authority has ameliorated the emphasis on individual autonomy.(lead paragraph to liberal values section.

• not picked up every challenge - what challenges? The section above (Response to Tradition) lists only rejections. The only conceivable challenge that could be inferred from it is "Judiasm is bunch of crap that should be replaced by a religion of reason." That is not the kind of challenge Progressive/Reform Judaism could have ever made nor would ever want to.

• reform have been modulated by contemporary concerns for continuity - this makes it seem like care for continuity is a new thing to Reform Judaism. In actual fact, multiple citations can be brought to support that continuity has been a concern for religious reformers since the very beginning. The secular haskalah and the reform movement in Judaism are not one and the same and they should not be facilely confused. The tension between the two is a feature of every reforming movement since reforming movements, especially religious ones, usually seek to return to a "purer" past. Even Samuel Holdheim, one of the most radical of the reformers still sought biblical and rabbinic precedent for his reforms (Meyer, Response to Modernity, 3-4).

• strict Kantian ideal vs. merits of Jewish particularism - not even sure what this means so I can't decide whether it is true or not.... Kant's downfall wasn't some strict ideal whose value was the merits of particularism. Kant's downfall was Wittgenstein and moral relativism, among other things. Progressive Judaism tends to reformulate its philosophy along with the secular world, so when Kantian universalism was no longer intellectually tenable, beliefs that were based on it fell by the wayside and reform reformed itself. In the post-modern world pluralism based on our individual and cultural perspective is treasured over some sort of uniform universalist truth. Hence particularity is a necessity. If we cannot perceive truth from some kind of universally common "inner knowing of a platonic ideal", then we must derive our ethics from another source - our particular social and ethnic vantage point - e.g. reviewing the whole gamut of Jewish tradition guided by the values of the prophetic tradition. (this is a rather rough summary of the line of reasoning presented in Borowitz's Renewing the Covenant).

• authority has ameliorated the emphasis on individual autonomy - how so? what evidence is there of this? authority and autonomy have always been in tension. When Meyer defined these polarities he did not mean that there was a historical progression from one end to the other, but rather that (a) at any time period there were usually a ranage of opinions on these issues (b) at some times one end of the pole dominates, sometimes the other, and sometimes the switch between poles happens more than once.

If anything, the support for autonomy has increased rather than decreased. How so? US Reform autonomy used to extend only to one's personal habits outside of the synagogue. And even for personal habits there was intense pressure to "not do". Variations in behavior in synagogue and personal observance were poorly tolerated during the era of "classical Reform" in the USA. In the last 20 years there has been increasing acceptance of varieties of personal observance both within and without of shul.[7].

• core liberal values continue to shape, specifically... - how so? what is liberal about particularism counterbalancing universalism? what is liberal about authority being given an increased role? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, liberal has six different meanings[8] including
  • 4. broad-minded=(tolerant of varied views;inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior)[9] and
  • 6. of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism Liberalism has many meanings, but of them, the only one relating to religion is "a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity"[10]. Since Judaism is not Christianity, we might rephrase this as "a religious movement emphasizing intellectual liberty and ethics".

It's not really about the four specifics set out above; but at a more meta level, a tendency to have to make compromises and balance off between different objectives is something that could be said to be quite a characteristic of political Liberalism (with different outcomes appearing in different times and different places). Once you take the step to move away from absolutes, some balancing of tensions becomes almost implicit in the questions you have to face. It's not that it necessarily comes in as a value of liberalism (though tolerance, diversity and pluralism should be close to the heart of most forms of liberalism), but I think it's arguably a recurrent hallmark that does quite often come in as a consequence of liberalism (in whatever sphere). Jheald 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a really great observation! If I understand you, the liberal values (which you would define as lack of absolutes+tolerance/pluralism?) lead to the need to recognize polarities, name polarities, and accept a range of positions along the polarities. I wonder have you seen anyone write up that observation in connection with Liberal Judaism? Or even as a general philosophical statement? Egfrank 14:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't give you chapter and verse. In the political sphere, it may be a view that's more typical in countries where the "Liberal" label is associated with parties with a largely centrist position on the political spectrum -- eg the UK and Europe, rather than Canada or Australia -- so that economic liberalism, classical liberalism and social liberalism may sometimes be pulling in different directions. It can indeed be a line of criticism -- "wishy-washy" liberalism, or "soggy liberalism" if centrist liberal political parties sometimes find it more difficult to make platforms seem crisp, without absolutes or arguments from authority. But this doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with Liberal Judaism. Jheald 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of these definitions have to do with core liberal values continuing to shape. If that claim needs explaining then its a synthesis and since there is no citation for this synthesis, it counts as an original synthesis, and so it violates WP:SYNTH. Egfrank 02:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You had set up this section based on Meyer's construct but you hadn't left it with any narrative lead. Instead of blasting away at my wording, which I still think is an ok rough draft to put up there, feel free to put up an intro to your outline that is more plainly right and makes more sense than mine. You are welcome to delete every word I wrote. I'll try not to criticize, condemn or complain about your draft. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

HG, I don't write leads until I've studied the material in depth and am sure that the lead I write is sensible, well organized and WP:NPOV. The outline I had represented the knowledge that I felt I could justify if challenged. My basic rule for my own writing is - if I can't show it to a professor, I don't want to write it. Sorry, but my standards are academic - not invent and punt.

If I deleted everything here that I thought was inappropriate, etc. we'd be back to my original outline (with a few additions you have made to the bullet items) - not mind you because my outline was mine, but because it was modest - it didn't try to say things that couldn't be supported and it didn't commit us to filling out and preparing a huge amount of cited unbiased material all at once.

There are bits and pieces here that you have added that are good - even really good - but unfortunately, by trying to organize the article *before* you have done the survey research, you've got a hodgepodge and a mess of synthesis that reflects your starting assumptions rather than the research.

Personally, I'd put the whole mess into a sandbox and go back to the much more modest outline that was previously in the Progressive Judaism article. Then I would

• focus on writing a *really* good article on each of the main sub-headings.
• put a synopsis in the Progressive Judaism article when the article is mostly done or at least well under way
• monitor the overall length of Progressive Judaism and should it get too long, *then* think about splitting off an article dedicated to beliefs. Splitting off an article before its time is not nice to the reader. No one wants to click around web pages more than they have to.

Again I'm not saying that as that material matures we wouldn't want an article like this. However, trying to just cram everything together is just compounding a mess. I'm not saying that to be difficult. I'm saying that because I believe it. Egfrank 03:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your approach to writing is admirable. Still, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so I hope you will find a way to let me into your heart and collaborate with somebody who approaches the wiki editing process in a different way. Be well, HG | Talk 03:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My approach to editing (at least with regards to leads and organization) is wiki policy - see WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. If you need to write out starting assumptions so you can throw evidence at them (some people do), then that kind of stuff belongs in a sandbox - we could even put a link to it on the Progressive Judaism, Reform Judaism or any other article. I'd be happy/honored/delighted to work together with you in that sort of environment. I just don't think it belongs in the main wiki. My reasons though aren't just Wiki policy. We have to keep in mind wiki exposure. If you google on "Progressive Judaism", "Reform Judaism", "Orthodox Judaism" or even just "Judaism" - Wikipedia is the first thing that shows up. People use these articles, they link to them, they at least skim them - even before they read anything else out there. So I think we need to take wiki policy seriously and hold ourselves to the highest standard. Egfrank 04:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not "blasting away" at your work. I was pointing out that (a) many of the statements are not supported in the sources and (b) that as such, they have problems of verifiability and WP:NOR. (that is legitimate in wiki land?) The main thing is to fix the problem. They are your statements. If you now see they are wrong, do something about it. Get rid of the three-fold division of beliefs -or- replace the lead with something verifiable. If you don't think they are wrong, support them with proper citations. There is nothing wrong here that isn't solvable. Egfrank 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outside comment

I was asked to comment (by Egfrank). My immediate thought is that this article is overly ambitious--the disparate subjects of the philosophical, theological, and ethical beliefs, and the social and religious practices, is too much for one article. There is already an introductory article on Reform Judaism, so it would make sense to divide this into at least two parts. But the real problem is what to say on the various points.

My second thought is that the long debate above is somewhat besides the point. It is fairly obvious to anyone familiar with Judaism of any sort that the beliefs and practices within any of the denominations varies widely, in terms of historical development, in terms of national identity, and even more in terms of diversity of belief and practice within the movement. some of the denominations may consider themselves to have true norms --though there is always considerable dissension about just what they are. But Reform certainly doesn't--there is only some very general agreement, and the articles on the movement make it clear this has been true from the start. So there is no point in trying to give an exact statement, and any of the possible sources for them would not be universally accepted. All that can be done is to show the range of variation, in the aspects of time and place and organizational structure and personality and sub-group. (My personal interests tend to be in specifying the historical lines of development, but that's not the only dimension.)

Opinion differs in WP about how to do such summaries. Some say that we at WP should write them, based on the most reliable tertiary sources, using our ability to construct an encyclopedic representation. Experience generally--and here--shows the difficulty of doing this so that there is general agreement, even among those represented at a WP discussion. Others say to use the most authoritative overall statement of the variation we can find, and rewrite it in WP encyclopedic NPOV language. (I interpret some of the difficulties above as an attempt to identify what such a statement should be.) My preference is to find representative quotations from the major tendencies, and either quote or summarize them. This still takes skill and compromise, for of course quotation can be done with very inequitable POV-ridden results. But it's possible--most of the leading groups in an argument do usually have some sort of statement of position.

It's not a matter of academic learning really, as in being reasonable. Any article like this will always be a compromise. But the emphasis should be in covering the whole range of variation. If two of you disagree as to what is the best statement, then--to paraphrase the familiar Jewish saying--both of you are right. No WP article can be definitive, but this approach should lead to an article that can serve as the basis for expansion by others. WP isn't print. DGG (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Although we have a Reform Judaism article, I don't know that it ever functioned as an overview or introduction in the sense you are talking about. The old Reform Judaism article [11] that you may be thinking of wasn't so much an "introduction" as it was four disconnected articles stuck into one page with an intro paragraph attempting to describe the "essentials". This got broken up into four separate articles ( German Reform movement (Judaism), Reform Judaism (North America), Reform Judaism (United Kingdom), and Progressive Judaism (Israel) between November 4-6 so that the different topics could thrive on their own. This article, I believe, is an attempt to fill in the missing overview/introduction.

One approach to an "overview" is to describe the "essentials". But unless one sticks with the nearly contentless generalization used to start the Progressive Judaism article one has real problems of definition. As I review the genre of "What is Reform/liberal/progressive Judaism" books and pamphles, even the "essentials" seem to be in flux - even in the same author!

Borowitz's Liberal Judaism (1984) defines the essentials as (1) changing with the times and (2) democracy. ("Liberal Judaism" is his inclusive term for the non-orthodox US Judaisms: Reform/Conservative/Reconstructionist). In "Renewing the Covenent" (1991) he's seriously questioning that definition and proposes a third alternative between the Judaism he defined in "Liberal Judaism" and Orthodoxy, an alternative which he calls "Postmodern Judaism". Here he defines the essentials as (1) a belief that human dignity comes from outside the human system, i.e. from God (2) a relational covenant between God and the Jewish people that invests dignity into human beings by turning them into partners with God and is "structured by Torah as record and mandate" (3) the individual's commitment to "God-oriented, community-guided personal choice"

And Borowitz, a leading theologian in the US Reform movement, is only one voice whose views are especially tuned to the American situation. Whether we limit ourselves only to the ones that sometimes get called "Reform" (US Reform, UK Reform, and Israeli Progressive) or consider the whole gamut of non-orthodox communities associated with the World Union for Progressive Judaism, I think it will be quite hard to find a single set of essentials beyond that very vague intro for Progressive Judaism taken from the WUPJ website.

Another approach is to use an "overview" or "introductory" article as a roadmap to a series of articles on specific topics. The narrative in this case is not a synopsis of each sub-article but rather an explanation of how the different sub-topics work together to form a overview of the range of thought and praxis that is associated with whatever group of progressive Judaisms (one,some,all?) are the focus. That has the advantage of helping someone to know what questions to ask without trying to pick one answer as normative.

And then there's the problem of scope: Isn't an article limited to "reform" or even "progressive" thought (or belief) artificial? Might it not be better to talk about the range of non-orthodox belief and praxis and then let individual region/denomination articles (US Reform, US Recon, US Conservative, UK Liberal, UK Reform) handle any fine tuning that is specific to their community?

While there is some organizational and historic justification for singling out the members of the WUPJ as a group, I'm not sure the same holds for their collective thoughts and beliefs. In the US there are marked differences in progressive movement affliates (Reform, Reconstructionist) vs. the US Conservative movement. Or at least there once was. Even that is being called into question as the Conservative movement gets increasingly divided into a left and right wing and the US Reform movement is sounding more and more conservative/reconstructionist every day. But outside the US, groups that would be most at home with US conservative thought and practice seem to find their home within the WUPJ and call themselves progressive Jews. Perhaps Borowitz's instincts to treat all non-orthodox as a group should tell us something?

Alternatively, if our goal is to put all the ideas into historical context, is a single historical narrative even possible? Neither Meyer nor his predecessor Philipson attempt it - once they gets past the early German reform movement they bounce around from region to region describing each of their histories in a relatively independent fashion along with some commentary about who influenced whom.

Your thoughts on the role of an introductory article, its structure, and its scope, I think would be most helpful. Egfrank 07:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably expected to reply. Thanks, DGG, for taking the time to look this over and comment. On your first point -- I agree that the scope is ambitious, but it's not unusual for an encyclopedia, as you know. (Otherwise, how can there be an article on history or literature?) On your second point -- I think I agree. Anyway, the article will improve if other editors join in and if there is a good working environment here. Along these lines, let me note that Egfrank made a series of edits (ca. Nov 14-16) that look like positive contributions. Thanks again, DGG. HG | Talk 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me note, that User:Egfrank thinks DGG is right and this article's scope is hopelessly overstated for all the reasons he gave.

Please do not consider any of my edits an acceptence of the validity of such a broad article. I still feel and have always felt that a much more modest exposition on Progressive Judaism is appropriate. And given DGG's points, I am increasingly convinced that even that modest Progressive Judaism presentation should be limited to nothing more than excerpts from the most recent mission statements and platforms of each of the denominations. Anything else I think is likely to be hopelessly POV about a POV.

As for the details, well that depends on what particular academic discipline is being used as a lens. If the organizational or intellectual development is at issue - the appropriate place for that is the Reform movement in Judaism article, or one of its sub-articles.

If the philosophical/theological content of specific topics is at interest, such as Bible, Halakhah, Zionism, etc. - the best place to handle them should be on the general articles on Bible, Halakhah, Zionism, etc. or appropriate sub-articles. Doing anything else disrupts the NPOV of those articles - Reform/liberal/progressive/reconstructionist, etc aren't some black-boxable sect of Judaism - these various flavors of non-orthodox Judaism have nurtured a number of thinkers - some popular within their movements; some not. Each of these thinkers have a legitimate POV within the spectrum of Jewish thought - as legitimate as any orthodox thinker. I fail to see a need to segregate those thinkers into some "Reform" or even "Progressive" ghetto.

So if you ask me - this article should be AfD'd and sent on its merry way. Especially now with the historical perspective covered by Reform movement in Judaism and history sections in some of the major regional denominations, I see little need for this. Are we also going to have a "Jewish beliefs and practices in Orthodoxy" article as well? If we are going to be NPOV about this we should. But personally I think that a Jewish beliefs and practices in Orthodoxy article is as silly an idea as is this article.

As for the request that "other editors join in" - the editor above created this article against the advice of two other editors by merging a large chunk of material marked as biased synthesis in one article with an outline in Progressive Judaism. In doing so the editor removed significant amounts of material from Progressive Judaism. The editor made no efforts to engage others in discussion before this creation, but rather acted unilaterally - essentially signalling that the opinions of those other editors rated so little that discussion wasn't worth the time. The editor above has also repeatedly made unsupported accusations to me and others of bias, POV pushing and inserted these accusations in edit summaries as well as talk pages. The editor above seems to think that these actions are supposed to create a friendly welcoming constructive environment. I am deeply puzzled by this conclusion. Egfrank (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've made or if you feel I've made accusations. Let's continue that discussion on the Wikietiquette section. Referring to me as "the editor" does not depersonalize the Talk. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)