Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 18


Contents

Batwoman a fictional Jew?

I am not an expert, but someone has put Batwoman into Category:Fictional Jews. Does anyone know if she was ever a "rebbetzin"? If not, will the person who is 100% sure take that category out of her article. Thanks, IZAK 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It says a later writer in the Batwoman series fleshed out her background and made her Jewish.--Ghostexorcist 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Following the trends I guess, nowadays everyone (or almost everyone) wants to be seen as "Jewish" -- but when I was a kid, she looked to me like the perfect drop-dead gorgeous "shiksa" in the comics. Also, if a "later writer" transforms a character and then tells things that we did not assume for a long time, does that mean that all the earlier assumptions must be withdrawn, or are we allowed to first "I Dream of Jeannie" as one thing and then later be told that she was something else?! Are we allowed to ask, for example, was she born Jewish, like Yentl or did someone convert her, like? IZAK 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Same for the following, are they really "fictional Jews" or is this all the work of pranksters or not?:

  • Baby Bear (Sesame Street) (where does it say he's fictionally "Jewish"?)
  • Jake Berenson (is he a "sci-fi" fictional Jew? Prove it!)
  • Bessie Glass (article says she was of Irish birth)
  • Betty Boop (article not sure if she had "orthodox" parents)
  • Billy (Billy and Mandy) (article says nothing about Jewishness)
  • Max Bialystock (no mention of his religion or ethnicity in the article)
  • & Leo Bloom (where does it say he's a fictional Jew?)
  • Phil D'Amato (is he really a fictional Jew?)
  • Alan Eppes (can't make heads or tales of this, is he fictionally Jewish or not?)
  • Charlie Eppes (can't figure this one out either)
  • Don Eppes (ditto)
    • Tough one. I'm almost certain that there's been no explicit mention of their religion. At the end of an episode of Numb3rs whose plot revolved around a painting stolen by the Nazis from a Jewish family, Alan (the father) was telling Charlie and Don (the sons) about relatives who died during the Holocaust. I got the distinct impression that this was the first time they had discussed the matter; I think Alan may have said so, that it was too painful to discuss. I can't remember if there's been anything else that might have hinted at their religion. Jewish or not Jewish? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • And as we have been told many times, not only Jews were the victims of the Holocaust. Maybe the Eppes are a gay or gypsy or ethnic Russian family, groups targeted for genocide by the Nazis. This is just "Holocaust theology" gone wrong, then. IZAK 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No need to get your panties in a knot. I was just describing the only thing I can remember in the show that suggested that they might be Jewish. Three Jewish actors sitting around talking about relatives who died in the Holocaust; maybe that's why somebody put them in the category. If it bothers you so much, remove them from the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Hi Malik: Nothing is in my panties at all cause I don't wear 'em. But my concern is that this has now become a fairly well-populated category and any time anyone thinks that they have "spotted" a Jewish fictional character they put him/her/it into Category:Fictional Jews, so that perhaps the time has come to impose a little more discipline into this phenomon and that it not be abused for any reason in any way. Maybe some people may find something about a character being called Jewish as offensive, and while creators of characters can do things to get attention and increase ticket sales and viewership, here at Wikipedia, editors and users are expected to use more caution in the process of compiling a serious encyclopedia. The reason I have listed these names here, is precisely for the reasons I gave about Batwoman above, that I am not an expert in all and sundry fictional characters and only people who have watched them in movies and TV or read about them can really help to make the final decision/s if the Category:Fictional Jews has been appropriately applied or if it has been to loosely used and even abused. Thanks, IZAK 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry for my tone. I understand. I wasn't trying to say that they are Jews, just suggesting why somebody might have put them in the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
              • On Friday's episode of Numb3rs, Charlie Eppes confirmed that he's Jewish. (His girlfriend is nervous about him meeting her father. "Is it because I'm Jewish?" "No, it's because you're not Indian.") I assume we can conclude that his brother and father are also Jewish. Is this something that should be mentioned in their articles? It clearly isn't an important factor in describing their characters. Any suggestions? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Filburt is a fictional Jew?
  • Doris Finsecker (doesn't mention anything about fictional Jewishness or otherwise)
  • Flacco is a fictional Jew?
  • Nat Ginzburg (does he admit to being Jewish?)
  • Jeremy Goldstein (what is his fictional Jewishness like?)
  • Nora Hanen (is she definitely a fictional Jew?}
  • Eugene Horowitz (but where does it say in the article that he's "Jewish"?)
  • Jim Levenstein (ditto)
    • It doesn't mention it in the article, but American Wedding does say he is Jewish (which I'm surprised wasn't added into the article). --Ghostexorcist 10:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • So is it not the responsibility of the article's creator to make this connection and insert it into the article? IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rachel Kominski (what makes her Jewish?)
  • Nora Lewin (no mention of being a Jewish character)
  • Josh Lyman (is he mentioned as being Jewish?) - In the character description. --Ghostexorcist 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Julie Mayer (Jewish bio info needed)
  • Karl Mayer (ditto)
  • Queer Duck (a fictional Jew?) - It says he is Jewish in the article. --Ghostexorcist 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking into this. I didn't see it. IZAK 10:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yetta Rosenberg (no mention of her Jewishness)
  • Adam Schiff (Law & Order) (ditto)
    • A classic Jewish New Yorker, practically a stereotype, but I don't know if his religion was ever explicitly mentioned. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, what is a "classic Jewish New Yorker" nowadays? This is thin ice to tread on. Is Mayor Mike Bloomberg also a "classic Jewish New Yorker"? He's actually from Boston, so does that make him a "classic Jewish Bostonian" too? In any any, how can a Wikipedia encyclopedia category be based on a prejudiced POV stereotype? Doesn't that go against many of Wikipedia's core principles and the way it functions? Unless someone can come up with a statement from one of the series' creators or actors or from a reliable (respectable?) review in the media, categorization based on such flimsy and biased views should not part of encyclopedia articles. IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC) IZAK 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that the article should be based on a stereotype, I was just describing the character. A Jewish actor portraying a character who seems Jewish, it's not hard to understand why somebody put him in the category. Again, if it bothers you so much, remove him from the category. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, what does being a Jewish actor have to do with being a fictional Jewish character? Do you know that supposedly three quaters of Hollywood's actors are "Jewish actors" see Category:Jewish actors, but that is never connected with anything Jewish. Many antisemitic movies have been made with non-Jews playing the roles of Jews, so what does that prove?, that there are no such animals as "typical Jewish actors"! Also there is a big difference between "seeming Jewish" and being Jewish -- and here we have some examples of how innuendo bordering on "poetic license" masquerades as "fact" because either someone is Jewish or they are not, and there can be a debate about definitions and criteria, but at no time can there be an assumption or statement, and in this case a categorizarion, based on something "seeming" to be what it may or may not be. And again, the reason I placed these names here is because I do not know enough about what these characters are all about, but what I can tell, is that many of them have been placed into Category:Fictional Jews without the article carrying some sort of information about this. IZAK 06:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
            • (1) Again, I'm not saying that the character is Jewish, I'm just suggesting why somebody might think so. (2) I know that neither this blog nor this book review are WP:RS, but evidently quite a few people think Adam Schiff is Jewish. I also found mentions on BBS's and fan sites, but nothing reliable. Yet. (The search is complicated by the fact that actor Steven Hill is an Orthodox Jew, so "Adam Schiff" and Jewish gets a lot of hits.) The fact that his character left the show to work for a Holocaust foundation (I know, I know) doesn't help matters. I'll keep digging. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Arthur Spooner (really a Jew?)
  • The Stoppables (Jewish?) - Same. --Ghostexorcist 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. IZAK 10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfabulous (are all these kids Jewish?)
  • Kevin Walker (Brothers & Sisters) (is a Jew?)
  • Justin Walker (ditto)
  • Kitty Walker (what about her?, she's part of this family, no mention of Jewishness in the article)
  • Thomas Walker (Brothers & Sisters) (if these guys are all Jewish, somewhere it must say so)
  • Nora Walker (same problem, no mention in article of Jewishness)
  • Sarah Whedon (Jewish in article?)
  • Michele Weinberger (where does it mention her Jewishness?) - character's info box. --Ghostexorcist 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Eli Zabitz (no mention of fictional Jewishness)

Please look these over and if you can confirm the "fictional Jewishness" of any of these characters, place a <u> </u> through them (and enter it into the body of the article somehow.) Thank you, IZAK 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Question. Does the category limit entries to only those of Jewish religious belief, or does it also include "ethnic" Jews? It may be that some of the characters are the latter, but not the former. If it is limited only to "religious" views, having some sort of comment at the top of the category stating that might not be a bad idea. John Carter 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Baby Bear (Sesame Street) ethnically Ashkenazic or Sephardic? --Shirahadasha 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ashkenaz. His original family name is Baer, after his Polish grandfather whose full Hebrew name was Yissachar Dov Ber. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, uh, um, uh...er...OK...I'll say it...er, uh, have you got a reliable source? --Shirahadasha 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In answer to "Question. Does the category limit entries to only those of Jewish religious belief, or does it also include "ethnic" Jews?" perhaps, in this case of "fictional Jews" we can assume that even the merest hint of being "Jewish" or having a Jewish sounding name or "looking Jewish" or "doing something Jewish", like saying Kadish or cursing in Yiddish, seems to magically turn any cartoon character, sitcom and soap-opera derelict, or movie character into being what their creators and by extension the audience "make believe" into a "Jew/ess" glaring at you onscreen. So Perhaps, getting down to a "solution" and "answer" to the question, if there can even be the intelligent thought of one, is to ask that strict guidelines must be imposed for determining Who is a fictional Jew?, or even better, What is a fictional Jew?, (as in the real life question of Who is a Jew?) or do we simply let the whole thing go, and just says that when it comes to fictional Jews, there are "no rules" and anyone can make up anything that is remotely connected to being a Jew or Jewish in reality that either does or does not get the agreement of most of the world's six billion or so people who do not have the foggiest notion of what a Jew is or is not, and that when it comes to Category:Fictional Jews it is governed by WP:Ignore all rules. How crazy (or "normal") is that? IZAK 04:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we rarely have a full fictional background to every character (we can't check a fictional ketuba). As viewers (or readers) we have to deal with a relatively small amount of information about the characters. I think that when the author the work gives a strong indication that the character is Jewish, without any indication that he is not Jewish, I think that enough to be a fictional Jew. Saying Kadish is enough - saying Yiddish is not. Looking "Jewish" is not enough, wearing a kipa is. Having a Jewish name is not enough, having the title rabbi is. Also if character is explicitly portrayed as Jewish, even if he does not fit the definition of "who is a Jew?" he is still a fictional Jew (Because the author was clearly trying to portray a Jew). Jon513 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jon513: Too many "ifs" and too many grey zones. You are knowledgeable about Judaism so you are able to make some decent distinctions, but if one looks at all the doubtful "fictional Jews" here, one would be hard-pressed to come up with any "definitive" answer to say who is and who is not fictionally Jewish. IZAK 10:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one opinion here. There will be several cases in which a character, even a significant character, is never explored to any great degree. Major supporting characters on TV comedies come to mind. In cases like that, I would think that if one or more of the comparatively few "big scenes" a character gets is seemingly indicative of the character being a Jew, such as having the character wear a kipa, then that would be sufficient basis to say that character is Jewish, with perhaps a note to the effect of "seen as wearing a kipa", as the writers seem to be going out of their way to establish the idea. If the character is of apparently or explicitly Jewish descent or partial descent, I would include them as well until and unless different lists for ethnic and religious Jews are developed. And, of course, unless/until different lists for religious and ethnic/secular Jews are developed, anyone seen as practicing Judaism would qualify for inclusion. I think the same basic standards are applied for fictional characters of other creeds as well. John Carter 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This brings to mind the characters in Seinfeld. Jerry and Kramer are ostensibly Jewish, while Elaine and George pretty clearly aren't. Newman(!!!)'s identity is somewhat nebulous, but the surname "Newman" is relatively common among Ashkenazim. Newman is an arguably irrelevant character in a discussion of "Who's Jewish in Seinfeld?", but to make my point... Elaine and George pretty clearly aren't, and while it's never stated overtly, the sense among everyone I've talked to is that Jerry, Kramer and Newman are. Enter the real world, and the vast majority of people are surprised to learn not only that Michael Richards is not, in fact, Jewish, but that Julia Louise-Dreyfus and Jason Alexander are. And, for the record, Wayne Knight (Newman) is not. The point I'm trying to make is that people who know Alexander and Dreyfus are Jewish IRL might assume they are on Seinfeld (making George and Elaine "fictional Jews") and people watching the show might assume Kramer is Jewish and make the mistaken assumption that Richards is in real life... making Richards a "fictional Jew" as well. Muwahahaha. Splitting too many finely, methinks, can lead to cut fingers. Tomertalk 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, for my two cents, if characters like Max Bialystock & Leo Bloom aren't verifiably Jewish, then the Lubavitcher Rebbe isn't verifiably Jewish either.
Which reminds me off topic; I saw a guy with a tattoo eating in a nonkosher pizza place yesterday; the thing is, he was wearing a yarmulke. I can't explain. Gzuckier 16:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This appears, unless I'm completely off-base, to be an extension of some editors' pathological obsession with classifying everyone with one ancestral Jewish hair (where's Cookie Monster? Everyone KNOWS Jews (well at least the Ashkenazim among you) are obsessed with the consumption of sugar, so surely Cookie Monster is Jewish. [After all, everyone knows Jews live in trash cans, if I remember my Sesame Street correctly.] El tiempo ha venido para destruir cada lista de judíos, las listas de los judíos vivientes, igual como las de judíos imaginarios. Tomertalk 08:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right, Cookie Monster is definitely an Ashkenazi Jew. Grouch? Check. Lives in trash can? Check. Uncombed hair? Check. Loud? Check. Obsessed with carb intake? Check. What more proof could anyone want? Sources? Who needs sources? Best, --Shirahadasha 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Optimus Prime is jewish. Masterhomer Image:Yin yang.png 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Ten Commandments

On Ten Commandments I'm more or less singlehandedly trying to deal with several people who have rather peculiar views on neutrality. I'd highly appreciate some assistance. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigmund Feist

I would like to see Sigmund Feist's scholarly work in matters pertaining to Jewish ethnicity and race mentioned explicitly in his article. Also, does anyone have any information relating to his activities outside the field of historical linguistics? The most pressing question in my opinion is whether this is the same Sigmund Feist that directed the Reichenheim Weisenhaus in Berlin. My preliminary research seems to confirm this, but I would like some corroboration if possible. (If he is the same person, then his article deserves to be expanded considerably, particularly in light of the 2002 volume Feldpostbriefe jüdischer Soldaten 1914 - 1918 by Hermann Simon, which gives insight into the lives of Jewish combatants in the First World War.) If anyone has any information or is willing to help with the article, please post on Talk:Sigmund Feist. Thanks. Varoon Arya 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the assumption I made above was correct. The article has been expanded to reflect this, though I would appreciate everything being worked over a time or two by more experienced editors. (Thanks again for the encouragement, Tom!) Varoon Arya 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar

If anyone is interested in doing a drive-by, I have about 100 edits on this article since late October and I can't even see it straight anymore. I could especially use some input on what exactly Maimonides did regarding the calendar, and most of the later sections (running out of steam). This was once a featured article. It still needs loads more refs if we are going to get it back there. Kaisershatner 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Development of the Jewish Bible canon ==> Tanakh

Discussion on Talk:Tanakh. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Development of the Jewish Bible canon seems a valid article in its own right, allowing WP:SUMMARY overview at Tanakh and Biblical canon.
I've responded at Talk:Development of the Jewish Bible canon, which I think is the more appropriate venue for the discussion. Jheald 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

article request

I presume he was Jewish, but was he notable for being Jewish? His NY Times obituary gives no indication that he was religiously active. Perhaps another WikiProject may be able to help here. JFW | T@lk 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "When this case arose, statistics of Hydrographic Office security cases showed a disturbing fact: the office had 13 employees who lived in Greenbelt. Five of them had been suspended as security risks. All the suspended men, but none of the others, were Jewish. (Greenbelt is about 8% Jewish)."
  • http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,819817-2,00.html
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we have a conspiracy theory. But left-leaning ideology has generally found an ear with somewhat assimilated American Jews, who still predominantly vote Democrat. Was there ever any further evidence that these people were targeted because they were Jews? JFW | T@lk 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. :-)
The three names associated with wrongful firings in the Mccarthy era are Radulovich, Chasanow and ladejinsky. The latter two were Jewish; some vague mention of Ladejinsky's Jewishness was made in the charges. Anyhow, Radulovich already has a nice article (because of the movie Good Night, and Good Luck, I suppose), and I'm working on Ladejinsky slowly but surely. Chasanow is a glaring redlink in the list. It is already a redlink on a few key pages re McCarthyism etc. If no one else writes the article, then I will, but I am extremely busy in RL writing a dissertation & could use some help. That's all! Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to know enough on Chasanow to write it yourself! JFW | T@lk 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.... I was just hoping for help. :-) Ladejinsky is actually more important as an agricultural economist than as a victim of McCarthyism; his page will take a very long time to write... esp. since as I said I'm busy... so if anyone helps, I would be grateful, but if not... that's OK of course. :-) --Ling.Nut (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Conservative Halakha and Conservative responsa

These articles currently seem to have a great deal of content in common, although described in somewhat different ways. If they should remain separate, suggest clarifying the difference in their subjects and removing the common content from one article or the other. Please feel free to comment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the overlap. What should be the destination article? Conservative responsa still bears the imprint of our good old friend RK (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 11:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have survey results on which term is used more, but I would note that Conservative responsa seems to be less controversial. Conservative Halakha survived an AfD, but nonetheless people seem to disagree from time to time and get into arguments about whether or not Conservative Halakha and Halakha are really different subjects. But everyone so far has agreed that Conservative responsa form a distinct subject. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That said, since one could make an argument for either article perhaps the editors who focus on Conservative Judaism might be better off deciding the issue as a group. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles as they currently stand do overlap quite a bit and that needs to be fixed. However, I see responsa and halakhah as fundamentally different topics. Halakhah ("walking") refers to the methodology. Responsa refers to the decisions based on that methodology.

I personally would be more in favor of refactoring the information in the articles so that

  • Conservative Halakha focuses on the methodology (using responsa only as examples of methodological principles)
  • Conservative responsa concerns itself with the actual decisions and discusses methodology only where it is needed to make sense of the responsa.
  • the section on "observance level" be moved to the article on Conservative Judaism. This section seems irrelevant to either the methodology or the responsa. Halakha is meant to be obeyed - by definition it defines expected norms. Whether or not, why or why not the norm is observed are separate issues from the definition of those norms.

Merging the articles is likely to choke either responsa or methodology or both. Both methodology and responsa are rich complex topics. Granted they lack the long history of traditional halakha. However, Conservative Halakhah is in some ways much more complex than traditional halakha. In addition to the traditional processes, it must take into account historical-critical analysis, sociological observations, and a vast range of other modern inputs. In addition, there are a wide range of opinions about how great a role these modern inputs may play in the halakhic decision. Then there are also debates about the nature and extent of the Rabbinical Assembly's authority to change prior precedents in light of modern inputs. At present there is a great deal missing from the discussion of Conservative Halakhic methodology. Thinkers like Joel Roth and Elliot Dorff deserve far more than a simple mention of their name. Others, like Louis Jacobs (Masorti - UK) and David Golinkin (Masorti-Israel) aren't even mentioned at all.

And I'm sure if we had more conservative editors present they would probably tell us that a lot is missing from the history of conservative responsa as well. For example, to the best of my recollection (and I am by no means knowledgable in Conservative halakhah) (a) Conservative rabbis are bound to the decisions of the Rabbinical Assembly but (b) may choose between the official majority opinion and minority RA opinions that meet certain criteria. This would mean that any discussion of Conservative responsa needs to be expanded to include certain minority opinions. In addition, there are significant differences in UK, Israeli, and US responsa on issues. These also are not discussed. As just one example, driving to shul on Shabbat is acceptable in the US, but not in the UK. (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points to consider. (1) When secondary sources address Halakhah (or "Jewish law"), the sources cover a wide range of subtopics, including methodology, history, literary sources, rabbis / thinkers, specific rulings, key terms and concepts, etc. The Conservative Halakhah article starts to address these various subtopics as they apply to Conservative/Masorti Judaism. (2) Responsa is a more narrow set of subtopics, focused on one (important) genre among halakhah's literary sources. As with the rest of Judaism, Conservative responsa are only a subset of the movement's sources and work on halakhah. Logically, then Conservative responsa could be merged into Conservative Halakhah, though maybe you'd end up with an article that requires some spin-off. (3) Currently, regardless of a merge, Conservative Halakhah might benefit from a spin-off for at least the homosexuality topic. The article would also benefit from a broader overview of how the Conservatives assess, develop and implement halakhah. (4) Currently, the Conservative responsa looks mostly like an annotated bibliography. As such, it can be pared down and readily moved into Conservative Halakhah. (While more could be said about Conservative responsa, incl regional differences, there aren't many quality sources on their responsa per se. So I support merge, otherwise, just add a responsa summary within Conservative Halakhah to make explicit the relationship between the articles. HG | Talk 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point that Conservative Halakha needs to function as a main article from which other articles including responsa could be spun off makes a lot of sense. Responsa don't really make sense unless they are placed in the context of the halakhic process that formed them.
But why not just move over the whole section on specific decisions in Jewish law over to the responsa article? That would consolidate the history of literature/bibliography in Conservative responsa with the actual descriptions of the responsa. Also by moving that section over one would give more breathing room for discussions of halakhic process in Conservative Halakha. The process topic has plenty of sources and it seems to me that it is very underdeveloped.
A final question - what exactly do you mean by lack of quality sources on responsa. I'd be highly surprised if JTS in New York or Machon Schechter in Jerusalem didn't have a great many academic quality sources on conservative responsa and halakhah. Did you mean on-line sources? Egfrank (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
On your questions: (a) It wouldn't be so bad to move decisions over to the responsa article, except that would presuppose that all Conservative J. decisions are made through the literary form of responsa. However, many such deliberations involve other types of literary (and non-literary) forms of halakhah. For instance, the Conservatives use academic genre, at least 1 codification (Klein's), the Lieberman ketubbah, the Prouser organ donation card, etc. In addition, the Cmte Law & Std operates by voting, and voting doesn't strike me as naturally or necessarily fitting under a "responsa" article. (Plus, technically, doesn't the Cmte vote on "resolutions" that refer to responsa? Technically, too, the Cmte can turn a responsum or other text into a takkanah.) For these reasons, I would put the main body of halakhic deliberations/decisions under Conservative Halakhah and reserve the responsa article for the particular genre. (b) There are good sources containing responsa, but I haven't seen many independent studies about Conservative responsa. Conversely, there are many scholarly studies about pre-modern and Orthodox responsa. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
PS I've added a section on "Sources" in Conservative Halakhah with a summary style link to Conservative responsa to give a sense of my suggestion. This isn't intended to preclude a merge if the consensus so decides. Also, added a bibliography to the Conservative halakhah article. HG | Talk 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
PSS For whoever might edit these articles for consistency, there's also much related material in Halakhah and Committee on Jewish Law and Standards about the Conservative approach. Also, it would help if neutral editors could cut down the way these articles serve implicitly (or bluntly) to either defend or criticize the Conservatives compared to the Orthodox. Too POV. HG | Talk 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Shomer Shabbat Userpage Template

Hello all, hope everyone had a good Shabbos. I've been using a little infobox on my user talk page for a while now to let people know that I won't be able to respond to inquiries during Shabbat. I finally got around to making it into a template form so others can share it if they like. The template is {{User:Elipongo/Userboxes/Shabbat hours}}, documentation for use is on the page. I am hardly an expert template coder, so if anyone wants to clean it up (especially the sub-template calls I can't seem to get rid of) feel free, or even move it out of user namespace if you think it's appropriate. I hope this will aid others who are shomer Shabbat in collaboration for the project. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion about such a template awhile back and there were some second thoughts about it. One concern was that in might result in an increase in vandalism of Jewish article pages. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea in principle, but personally I would not like to let trolls know when I'll be off-wiki. I am aware of one hard-working editor who was stalked by off-site activists, with efforts to pinpoint him including an analysis of his editing on Friday afternoon/evening and Saturday. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there more vandalism to clean up on Sunday than the other days of the week? There are more than a few Jewish editors who have similar userboxes or text explanations on their Userpages. There are also some editors whose userboxes offer "hints" that they may be shomrei shabbat (e.g., "I tie my own tzitzit, "I make kiddush", "I keep kosher"). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I see your points, but frankly I think you give vandals, trolls, and stalkers too much credit. The majority of them seem (to me, anyway) to not be sophisticated enough to read instructions and understand the ramifications thereof. For example; I actually had a vandal stalk my userpage for a bit- changing text and the images, etc.- but even though this very note was on my talk page the entire time (over several weeks), he never bothered to mess with my page during Shabbat.
Lots of editors have an "I'm on/off line" notice on their user or usertalk pages, and this is of a similar vein. I should think that if this template were to cause any real trouble for a particular editor, they could just take it back off of their page.
Regarding the issue of increased cleanup motzei Shabbat, I have some thoughts. Taking into consideration the fact that we have Jewish editors ranging form New Zealand to Hawaii and all points in between, the time should be very short when none of us is watching the articles. For example, this coming Shabbat in Wellington runs from Friday at 06:17 UTC to Saturday at 07:27 UTC while in Honolulu it runs from Saturday at 03:30 UTC to Sunday at 04:24 UTC (source), leaving just about four hours when nobody's watching.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ezra

The Ezra article currently has no traditional Jewish sources -- the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is used to represent Jewish tradition and the Encyclopedia Brittanica and various non-Jewish source are used as sources of Jewish views and opinion. I added a short paragraph mentioning the Great Assembly, right now it's the only mention at all that at he had any role in Halakha. If anyone would have time to add a more thorough section on the traditional Jewish view of Ezra and his role, even a brief start, would be greatly appreciated. Best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as always, the choice of the ideal source. I can think about the introduction to ArtScroll "Ezra" or Yishai Chasida's biographical dictionary of Tanakh personalities. And of course Maimonides' introduction to the Yad, which is about as authoritative as one can imagine... JFW | T@lk 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

David HaLivni's Peshat and Drash views midrash as tikkunim on a corrupted text and dates the fixes to the time of Ezra - I think you might find some valuable material based on traditional sources. Both David haLivni[1] and Tikva Frymer-Kensky who is quoting him are well respected scholars. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look up the book myself. Hope that helps. Egfrank (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the view of the Union for Traditional Judiasm is ipso facto a "Traditional Jewish view", but I had kinda meant a small "t". I would classify Halivni's views on this issue as academic scholarship rather than religious views, although there's very little of either on Ezra's role in Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if I recall correctly he cites several relevant traditional sources - the advantage of using HaLivni is that (a) the synthesis on those sources will not be WP:OR (b) those sources can be used as the start of a bibliography for sources with small 't'. Egfrank (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

another article request

  • Jewish Rescue Committee. From a brief look at Google (1250 hits), it seems likely there were many such organizations in different countries. I first noticed this missing article while reading Edward Teller. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Organ donation under Jewish law

Organ donation under Jewish law needs help with sources and citations. Anyone who knows something about this topic, please help out. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I found one news snippet That I can email you, if you have email set up. In addition, a quick search turned up the following sources:
  • MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH:A JEWISH APPROACH TO MODERN MEDICAL ETHICS. By Elliot N. Dorff. Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society 1998. Pp. xix, 476. $24.46. ISBN: 0-827-60647-8
  • A periodical called B'OR HA'TORAH seems to have dealt with the topic.
  • Twersky, Abraham, Michael Gold, and Walter Jacob. 1991. "Jewish Perspectives." Pp. 187-98 in New Harvest: transplanting the body and reaping the benefits, edited by C. Don Keyes and Walter E. Wiest. Clifton, NJ: Hurnana Press.
  • Medicine Meets Religion In Organ Donation Debate. By: Ramirez, Anthony. New York Times, 11/18/2006, Vol. 156 Issue 53767, pB2-B2, 1/3p; (AN 23283799)
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Added sources. More importantly, the article needs/deserves editing and improvement. I put in sections, cleaned up some mistakes, intro, etc. Still needs work. Also, am I missing something, or is there no article on pikuach nefesh?! I did find Self-sacrifice under Jewish law, but that's not quite the same. We also need to bite the bullet and clean up our categories, eg Jewish law, Jewish ethics, Jewish medical ethics. Ah, the day is short, the task is great, the editors are lazy.... but the Master is demanding! HG | Talk 13:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, started Jewish medical ethics and its category. Input needed. Would still be happy if somebody could divide up the "Jewish law and rituals" category as previously discussed. Thank. HG | Talk 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut: Thank you for your efforts, the reason I asked for help is because I was working on filling up the new Category:Bereavement in Judaism and came across some articles that were pretty significant yet lacked sourcing. In the olden, olden, days of Wikipedia, when I first joined five years ago, the issue of citing sources was less crucial than creating articles that were assumed to be reliable because the editors who worked on them displayed a reasonable mastery over the material. So all efforts to update such articles with sources and citations as is the current mode are more than welcome. IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agunah

The Agunah article needs improvement with sources and citations. Please help if you can. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a great source for this kind of question. Jewish Law: Bibliography of Sources and Scholarship in English, search and ye/we shall find. For theoretical complexities, google Bernard Jackson, Aviad Ha-Cohen and Michael Broyde. HG | Talk 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of life

I am very suprised to see that on this page there isn't the true "meaning of life" discussed anywhere, i.e. as a corridor into the next world. Comments please! Chesdovi 23:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Try WikiProject Islam or Christianity. Tomertalk 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would actually like to add the Jewish view but am not to sure where to find a good source. Chesdovi 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I hate discussions on talk pages that talk about the subject of the article instead of the article itself, with no intention of improving the article, I don't see why a wikiproject should be any different. Jon513 12:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, I though you wanted to start a discussion, not an article. Jon513 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding a specific religious viewpoint to an article which at this point has no religion-specific content might be a bad idea. There is nothing in the article as it stands regarding the meaning of life from specifically Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or other viewpoints either. Personally, I'm not sure that the existing article would necessarily be improved by such additions, as the article would then in accord with POV have to include all the other religion-specific variations mentioned above, and several others as well. The articles on Religion, Religious humanism, and their own subarticles might be better choices for where to place such content. John Carter 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no harm placing a few words about the meaning of life according to various religions, this is where people expect to find the info about it. If it explicitly states Judaism views the meaning of life as..., why should a POV problem arise? Chesdovi 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing, provided it also says, to abide by the guideline of WP:NPOV, "(X) views the meaning of life as ...", with different sentences for, respectively, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Scientology, Thelema, Bahai, Santeria, voodoo, and every other religious group which has a stated view on the subject. I think the length might wind up being rather problematic, however, were we to do that. John Carter 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Putting aside the length problem (the article as it stands is already quite long) these views should be briefly summed up to save one searching for all the views on their respective pages – after all this is the meaning of life we’re talking about!! Chesdovi 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I have just noticed the following blanked out in the Theistic section:

<!-Please do not include single-religion specific entries in this section. Thank you.-->

<!-The teachings of religions (and their beliefs about the meaning of life) are presented in religious texts, such as the Bible and the Koran which are considered the Word of God, and thus authoritative. But these works are interpreted in many ways, and therefore there are many interpretations to the meaning of life expressed by various religions.-->

I think it is important nevertheless to include something about this and will therefore bring this up on the talk page there. Chesdovi 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that this article may contain a certain amount of original research and/or filler. Summarizing is one thing, summarizing to the point where one isn't really saying anything (and in fact is requested not to say anything) is another. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That article is a hopeless pile of random junk. Disallowing religious perspectives is just mindless - that is one thing all religions have in common: giving meaning to life! There are some pretty authoritative Jewish sources that could easily inform a 4-5 line paragraph that would enhance rather than destabilise that article. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. However, I'm not sure adding paragraphs for possibly each of 20 or more religious groups indicating their specific ideas of the subject is necessarily going to improve it, particularly when all the smaller groups will ultimately say that they'll have to be included as well. John Carter 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an article dying to be written here... religious views on the meaning of life or some similar title. Tomertalk 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It does strike me that permitting nothing but plather on religious points of view -- specifically forbidding meaningful specifics -- while permitting specifics on non-religious points of view results in systematic bias in violation of WP:NPOV because an artificial appearance is generated that religion has nothing specific or meaningful to say on the subject while other viewpoints are permitted to offer such meaning. Why not spin all the specific viewpoints off into sub-articles, and similarly divide non-religious viewpoints into a few large categories, so that we can similarly say that there is a wide range of opinion within each category without saying very much about what that opinion is, and similarly not permit any specifics to be written about any individual viewpoint that might make it seem interesting? This would result in religious and non-religious viewpoints operating at the same level of plather. Imagine an article on politics that gives each Democratic candidate an individual vote-for-me essay, but requires grouping all Republican candidates into a short paragraph ("There are a variety of Republican candidates and they have different reasons why they think you should vote for them. <!-Please do not include Republican-candidate specific entries in this section. Thank you.--> Would this be WP:NPOV? Would Wikipedia permit it? Didn't think so. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the existing structure of the article is primarily about the philosophical, not religious, concept of the meaning of life. If that's true, then it might make sense that inclusion of definitions as per specific religions might create problems. Particularly for some of the lesser known religions. For instance, the meaning of life for the Aztecs seems to have included sacrificing yourself (or, more often, someone else) to the gods as food. While true, that doesn't exactly address issues of how to live your life and conduct yourself, except in rare situations most people would probably prefer to avoid. Having said that, I do think that creating a separate article on the meaning of life as per various religions, and creating a link to that article in this article, wouldn't be a bad idea. John Carter 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
John, how can you separate philosophical views from religious views? Ultimately, regardless of what religion you claim you are, your philosophical views are your religious views. If your philosophical views are different from your religion's views, that's possible, and odd, although I suspect, not terribly uncommon...but that means your religious views are different from your professed religion's views. Tomertalk 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The current article not only doesn't deal with what its title makes it seem to purport to, its very organization bespeaks an unmistakeable systemic bias against religious responses to the question "What is the meaning of life?" (a subject which the article doesn't cover at all, but that's ok, the article should probably either be redirected to Life or deleted as a dicdef...the relevant question is "what is the purpose of life?", not what does it mean to be alive, but rather why are we alive, and also not the how that the article meanders off with). Look at its organization:

  1. Scientific approaches to the meaning of life
    1. What is the origin of life?
    2. What is the nature of life?
    3. What is valuable in life?
    4. What is the purpose of, or in, (one's) life?"
    5. Analysis of teleology based on science
  2. Philosophy of the meaning of life
    1. Value as meaning
    2. Existentialist views of the meaning of life
    3. Humanist views of the meaning of life
      1. The purpose of human life
      2. Enlightened self-interest and the common good
      3. Humanist doctrines and life stance
  3. Theistic beliefs about the meaning of life
    1. Relationship to God
    2. What is the purpose in one's life?
  4. Spiritual and mystical views of the meaning of life
    1. Mystical views
  5. Popular beliefs of the purpose of life
    1. ...to survive
    2. ...to find happiness

Almost nothing in the "Scientific approaches" section actually deals with the question. Humanism and existentialism get full coverage, and other religious views are subsumed under "theistic beliefs" (sorry, all you deists. better luck at uncyclopedia.) I could write more, but I should probably bite my tongue. Tomertalk 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering putting this article up for WP:AFD. It's chief problem is WP:SYN -- throughout the article, editors present and source various topics and then make the completely unsourced and unsubstantiated claim that these topics are about the meaning of life. I realize this article, begun in October of 2001, is one of Wikipedia's first articles and it may well have historical value to the project and perhaps should be kept in stubbified form or moved to non-main space. But it just doesn't cut it as an article under current policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That might be the best way to go. Also, as noted in the article, there already are a multitude of ways in which the basic questions relating to the meaning of life can be at least addressed by addressing what may be the salient religious points. If the religious responses were to be included, then I have a feeling that the article would become little but a laundry list of specific, possibly POV, OR, and/or SYNTH responses relevant to every religious system in the history of the country. Also, there are potentially additional answers beyond the possibly primary religious answer, which would almost certainly be crowded out if all the variant religious responses were removed. Maybe the best thing to do would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and ask for their opinion about the article before acting, though. John Carter 15:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Ñ
I tried at one point, probably too early in my Wikipedia history, to split this article into separate articles. I originally thought it would be best as Meaning of life (religion), Meaning of life (science), Meaning of life (philosophy), and Meaning of life (popular culture) or some such articles. Each of these areas has said/says interesting things about the question, and each takes a very different approach to the topic, both methodologically and in the conclusions reached. However, there was resistance to this idea.
The article is constantly vandalised, as you would expect, often has POV information added and removed, and is a bit of a mess, but there are a number of people who have worked hard on it over the years, and it is a topic that needs a wikipedia article. I don't think it is correct to call it a "pile of junk". I thought there was some AfD is not for articles that need tidying up rule?
I think you people are right about the absurdity of excluding specific religious views, although, to be honest, the thought of the views on the meaning of life of twenty religions being included makes me feel even less inclined to edit the philosophy section than I felt before! However, the article is not written on the philosophical position on the meaning of life. It is supposed to be general. If you people want to argue on the talk page that the no views from specific religions bit be deleted,I will definitely back you. The past history of this article means that it might be smart to sort out ground rules about referencing - perhaps to secondary sources? - before suggesting anyone with religious views on the meaning of life add them to the page.
As far as the organisation and content of the existing article is concerned, I guess you could restructure it, but I assume you want to put religious views first, and I imagine that will start a series of revisions. I doubt the order matters much. The content is pretty much a reflection of which interest groups have bothered to take the time to find referenced material to put in the article; hence, the humanists and transhumanists dominating the article. I think that (POV!) the science section should probably stay, even though science says stuff all about the meaning of life. That is kind of a statement in itself really, and pretty much what Tolstoy was getting at in My Confession. However, surely it is in line with Wikipedia's policies to delete content that is inappropriately referenced or doesn't seem to be about the relevant topic. Perhaps someone could do a number of minor edits, with time for people to yelp and discuss each one as you go?
P.S. It is definitely possible to separate philosophy and religion, although philosophical views will definitely affect religious views and vice versa. A person's views on perdurantism or the existence of possible worlds, or even whether Aristotle or Immanuel Kant have the right approach to ethics might not have much at all to do with her religious background or beliefs. We can argue about that on my talk page if you wish :). Regards, Anarchia 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has said "religious views should be presented first", just that explicitly excluding religious ideas is patently absurd. Tomertalk 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Breaking up the article into the four stated subpages above, or maybe some other format, wouldn't be an idea I would object to, however. John Carter 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

With much regret I have proposed this article for deletion, the discussion is here. It doesn't seem possible to have a single article on such a topic that is reliably sourced without its being at best an original research synthesis. There also seems to be difficulty complying with WP:NPOV on the subject. There seems to be no way to determine, for example, what weight to give opinions. A number of articles seem to be dumping grounds for POVs and their pushers, but there doesn't seem to be a practical way to construct a policy-compliant article. If I am wrong in this I could not be more pleased. Best, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Isha katlanit

Isha katlanit needs citations and sources. IZAK (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a half dozen. Sufficient? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks HG: Good work. Ideally some citations should be part of the body of the main article. It takes work, I know. Thank you for your efforts. IZAK (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's continue on article Talk. Mention which sentences you think need citation. Ciao, HG | Talk 06:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Chavez

Hey why is the article on Hugo Chavez part of this project? It seems like a POV label to try and say he is a leading anti-semite, which he is not (either a confirmed anti-semite and defintely not a leading one), I dont doubt he is critical of Israel, however this does not make him anti-semitic, something a few editors on wikipedia dont seem to get...172.143.124.86 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This project is about the religion. It explicitly avoids antisemitism as its scope, apart perhaps from the purely theological antisemitism of Chrysostom and Martin Luther. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell us where is Hugo Chávez] is mark as being part of this project so we can correct it. I cannot find a "wikiproject Judaism" banner on the talk or in its recent history. Jon513 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstading the project, I thought notable anti-semites and holocaust deniers were marked under wikiproject Judaism (as I have seen on several talk pages about antisemitism), I dont have a problem with this as anti-semitic feeling is part of Jewish history, however... there isnt really evidence to say Chavez is neccessarily anti-semitic, and if he was he is hardly a defining figure in Jewish histroy or anti-semitism. Sorry again for misunderstanding the scope of the project, however this does not seem to be my misunderstanding but the editor who marked Criticism of Hugo Chavez as part of wikiproject Judaism (again sorry I should have specified not Chavez but criticism of Hugo Chavez). I put a note about it on the article's talk page and I think its gonna be removed soon.172.213.23.217 09:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, dyslexic so may have some spelling issues I havent spotted.

edit: Well Ive removed the tag myself, as by your own definition of what this project encompasses criticism of Hugo Chavez should not be part of it. However ill put it back if you think it should go back.172.213.23.217 09:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That article was added to this project by a bot called SatyrBot. You can find a comment I left on the bot's talk page here, including some diffs. Apparently, among other things, this bot roams Wikipedia adding articles to WikiProjects based upon the categories they're in. It looks like some, uh, well-intentioned user decided it would be a good idea to add every article in Category:Antisemitism to Wikiproject Judaism, and hey, presto, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, The Jew of Malta (a 16th century play by Christopher Marlowe), Ku Klux Klan, Bobby Fischer, and Crossfire (film), along with many others, are now all part of WikiProject Judaism (Crossfire is a 1947 film, which I highly recommend, about the antisemitic murder of a Jew by some recently discharged soldiers. It's completely devoid of religious content, though). This has been going on for months and this isn't the only project that's been hit.
All ranting and frustration aside, I really think it ought to be up to the members of the project to decide what pages it will concern itself with. This bot hasn't been doing us any favors in that regard and I'm inviting suggestions as to a course of action. At the moment, I think it wouldn't be going too far to leave a message on the bot's talk page that reads something like this:
"Please don't allow your bot to add any articles to WikiProject Judaism. Please delete all WikiProject Judaism templates that have been added by your bot. Should you or your bot discover any articles that may be suitable for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism, you are welcome to leave comments at the project's talk page suggesting that they be included.
Or is that too snarky?
Finally, should we have an RfC on whether we want this bot adding pages to the project? I'm not really familiar enough with the policies or procedures to know how this bot was approved or how to ask for changes in its operations. Can anyone advise?
Incidentally, the bot is run by a user called SatyrTN who has recently been asked to accept a nomination for adminship. Steven J. Anderson 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just got a reply from SatyrTN and he says that he had the project's permission to do this while I was away from Wikipedia for a while and the bot's not adding links from Category:Antisemitism any more. He gave me a link to an archive of this page where the whole thing was discussed (scroll both up and down for the whole conversation). Still, it's troubling that when someone came here wondering where the tag on the Chavez page came from, no one could remember anything about it. This seems to imply that there's a bot out there adding the project's tags and our collective memory can't call up the explanation. I hereby withdraw my snarky tone, but not my dismay at some of the pages that have been added to the project. --Steven J. Anderson 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update on Category:Jewish law and rituals

Hi HG: Can you just remind me what your issues were with Category:Jewish law and rituals? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here. It's my impression that other comments agree w/my suggestion to separate the terms. Key reason is that "Jewish law" includes numerous non-ritual topics. So good support for Category:Jewish law. Still up in the air whether the other category should be Jewish "ritual" or "practice." Obviously, some articles could get both J-Law and J-Ritual cats. Also: perhaps we can have a simpler Category:Jewish ethics instead of "Jewish ethical law" (which is not a common term). Thanks. HG | Talk 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Since this seems to have some support and no opposition, I've gone ahead and created Category:Jewish law. Started to switch some obvious articles over from "Jewish law and rituals" to the new category. Perhaps others can help re-categorize articles. Meanwhile, we can rename the Ritual/practices category and the Ethics ("ethical law") category. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge to what language?

Is there any consensus about what to do with two entries about the same topic in different languages, as in Ma'oz Tzur and Rock of Ages? TewfikTalk 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I believe having two different articles here is legitimate and would not support a merge. They are really two different works. Rock of Ages (Chanukah hymn) is a loose, sanitized translation of the first stanza and chorus of Ma'oz Tzur. It avoids language in the original Ma'oz Tzur that liberal denominations of Judaism might consider theologically problematic. Later stanzas of the original make explicit reference to Orthodox Jewish aggadah and theological beliefs that Reform Judaism has explicitly rejected. It is entirely possible that a complete and direct translation of Ma'oz Tzur would not be accepted in liberal Jewish circles as Rock of Ages is. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: Is the reason for the two articles theological, or is it that Ma'oz Tzur is about the Hebrew song and Rock of Ages (Chanukah hymn) is about the English song? The heading at Rock of Ages (Chanukah hymn) suggests the latter ("For the original Hebrew version, see Ma'oz Tzur").
If the two articles exist for theological reasons, I think a single article is appropriate, and it should discuss any denominational differences concerning the song. If the consensus is that two articles are absolutely necessary, I think they should still discuss the denominational differences.
If the two articles are about the different languages, they should make clearer their different purposes. For example, the lede in Rock of Ages (Chanukah hymn) might be changed from
Rock of Ages (in Hebrew, Ma'oz Tsur) is by far the best-known Hanukkah hymn.
to
Rock of Ages is by far the best-known Hanukkah hymn in English. It is a loose translation of the Hebrew piyyut Ma'oz Tsur.
Just some thoughts. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a merge is in order, with a clear mention in the intro that Rock of Ages is a well-known adaptation. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell Rock of Ages and Ma'oz Tsur are in fact two different songs set to the same tune. Any other explaination is going to be hard to justify:

Gates of Prayer (1975-1998), the US Reform prayerbook used in many (but not all) US Reform congregations, has two hymns printed in the back of the prayer book (a) Ma-oz Tsur - in Hebrew with Transliteration (b) Rock of Ages - English only. From this I surmise that they are in fact different songs. However, if we need more evidence than this, I am happy to research it and provided more detailed citable information on the history of different versions of this song.

As for the claim that Reform Judaism rejects... US Reform Judaism is by no means monolithic. When X or Y is passed as a CCAR or UAHC/URJ resolution, the resolutions are non-binding and especially in the case of the CCAR merely advisory. As with the conservative movement, the hiring practices of congregations often render the CCAR decisions moot. Choices of hymns and verses of hymns are generally left to the individual congregation. In the particular case of Ma'oz Tzur and Rock of Ages that is clearly the case - or why have both in the prayer book?

Anyone who checks the prayer book will note (consistent with Shirahadasha's claim above) that only one verse of the Hebrew version is printed. However, I don't think anything conclusive may be derived from the number of verses included. If one scans the pages of Gates of Prayer one will quickly notice that many psalms and prayers have been shortened. Sometimes this does reflect philosophical reasons but most cases it just a matter of logistics or educated guesses about what will appeal to most congrations. Many US Reform congregations like to keep services to about an hour and so eliminate verses. Some recite both Hebrew and English versions of the prayers, further exacerbating time issues. Examples of non-theological shortening and intentional presentation of alternatives can be seen in

  • Hallel (pp.525-530) where about all that is left of Hallel is the portions that were traditionally sung aloud by the chazan, sung in call-response fashion by chazan and congregation, or sung communally by all.
  • Weekday Psukei D'zmra/Birchot haShachar - 5 versions of varying lengths are offered! - (1) a scant half page in both Hebrew and English (p. 72), (2) an English only meditation (kavenah) about awe and wonder meant to be read in unison or by the rabbi (p. 82) (3) A responsive all English reading (p. 92) (4) a one page version (p. 102-3) which consists of an excerpt from Ps. 85 in English and Hebrew, followed by an English Kavenah, followed by a single verse from Ps. 118 (hodu l'hashem ki tov) again in Hebrew an English (5) a much abbreviated but more traditional version - English/Hebrew covering 5 pages with lots of whitespace (pp. 51-54) - again the included portions mostly reflect portions that are normally said aloud when Rinat Israel or other traditional prayerbooks are used.

I have used Gates of Prayer as an example for US Reform, but even that is problematic if one wants to make claims about US Reform Judaism as a whole. A new prayerbook coming out has restored many of the sections removed in earlier prayer books, plus adding a host of new kavenot. Knowledgable cantors seeking to expand their congregations' musical horizons often re-insert selected piutim - the piut associated with birkat hageshem said at the end of Sukkot being just one example.

In the 30 years since Gates of Prayer was originally published, there has been tremendous innovation and many congregations either have their own home-grown prayer books or have so many inserts that Gates of Prayer is all but unusable. For example, at HUC in Jerusalem (which follows US custom rather than Israeli custom in its Tefillah), the cantor Eliyahu Schliefer does a full sephardi slichot every year on Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. The Seder Avodah is also read. You will find no mention of these in Gates of Awe the US Reform High Holiday prayerbook. We use thick hand-outs instead. Similarly, on Shabbats at HUC in Jerusalem, the first blessing of the Amidah alwauys includes the seasonal morid-ha-tal/yored-geshem and nzkei-colanu-mehra-l'orot even though the prayer book itself omits them. There are many other examples of deviations from the printed book.

In general, I think it quite hard to make objective verifiable generalizations about US Reform Judaism. The page where the URJ answers the question "What is Reform Judaism?"[2],[3] is pretty general and doesn't even necessarily distinguish it from other US movements! It affirms nothing beyond

  • a committment to God, Torah, and Israel (um...and what religious Jew doesn't? - hardly a distinguisher)
  • Judaism changes over time - OK, but US conservative and reconstructionist Judaism also believes this. Even some modern orthodox admit the possibility of change, at least when it doesn't contradict the Shulchan Aruch.
  • a philosophy of inclusion - also true from US Reconstructionism and most of the middle to left of Conservative Judaism.
  • a belief in an (unspecified) commonality amidst diversity

On details about God, Torah, Israel (the stuff that pop sites about religion like to discuss) it is completely silent - the exact nature of divine inspiration, the role of Halakha and the nature of the halakhic process, the contents of liturgy, etc. Surely if these were core to the self definition of US Reform they would have a prominent place?

A more detailed idea of what is considered "US Reform" might come from the recommended reading listhere but a quick glance will show a number of authors who either downplay their affiliation(Weisel,Biale), or are associated with denominations other than US-Reform: conservative(Heschel), reconstructionist (Art Green), or orthodox(e.g. Irving Greenberg, Hayim Donin, Adin Steinsaltz).

In sum, I think it best not to base our organization of articles on generalizations like Reform Judaism accepts... Reform Judaism rejects... The list of things that US Reform Judaism is willing to affirm as valid is too broad for us to do so. Egfrank (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a liberal translation, yes, but it's clearly meant to be the same song. Merge to Ma'oz Tzur.--Pharos (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Hanukkah, need help on Kvitlech article

Anyone able to flesh out Kvitlech? It's some sort of Hanukkah gambling game but it's wont for detail. Also, the article probably should have a dablink out to whatever article we (I imagine) have on those little Jewish prayer notes that, in Yiddish at least, go by the same name, but I'm not sure of the contemporary term for those. -- Kendrick7talk 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The only decent article I could find on it is here.--Pharos (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was looking for. Certainly striking similarities with blackjack, e.g. surrender versus "loaf." Thanks! -- Kendrick7talk 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Singapore

Hi, there is a need for an article about the History of the Jews in Singapore. At the present time there are articles about the Chesed-El Synagogue and the Maghain Aboth Synagogue in Singapore that have some facts that may help such an article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and ecology

Started an article on Judaism and ecology, as a spin-off of Religion and ecology. For scope and name, see Talk page. Likewise, editing Category:Judaism and ecology to be consistent. Anyway, perhaps folks would enjoy working on either the main article or the category? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. elat chayim center has some valuable info. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Vandalism Of Hanukkah / Possible Temp Protection?

There's been 'non-stop' rampant, malicious vandalism of Hanukkah. Maybe its only during the period of Hanukkah, but the article is being ruined. Maybe some interested parties could get a temporary restriction on editing especially by people without user accounts. If this is not the appropriate or best place for this note, then please move and or copy it to a more appropriate place. I'm not a member of Project Judaism, I just noticed the vandalism 'in passing'. Thanks. AnFu (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As you suggested, I requested protection yesterday. (Anyone can submit a request at WP:RPP.) The page is now semi-protected, which should stave off most vandalism. Let folks here know if you need help restoring or improving the page. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for the tip on where to request protection. It seems people are already busy repairing the article, after such an unfortunate destruction. AnFu (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note:That's the formal way to do it, but there are also informal ways. You can also, for example leave a message with any administrator, such as one who edits Judaism articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicki Polin, The Awareness Center

Proposing a merge of Vicki Polin into The Awareness Center. Please join the discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears User:Avi has boldly gone ahead and merged the articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Shochet training

At what age does the shochet (kosher-butcher) training begin? I know they are required to have a religious education apart from their butcher duties. I doubt there is a norm at which everyone begins, but I am interested to know if it takes places after someone graduates from Yeshiva or before. --Ghostexorcist 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduation from yeshiva? Are you using USA terminology?
To my knowledge there is no norm. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One cannot be a shochet before age 13, but I do not believe one even needs to graduate from a yeshiva (ie obtain Semicha). --Eliyak T·C 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Ghostexorcist: The laws of shechita ("slaughtering") exist within their own realm of rules. In some ways it may seem that to be a shochet is "easier" than being a rabbi, and in other ways, it is a specifically more complex skill that requires the shochet to be both a reliable Torah scholar especially familiar with the laws of shechita through serious study and at the same time be fully proficient in a series of skills required to set up his chalef ("slaughtering knife") and in its exact maintenance, set-up, readiness, use and application. The shochet is also required to be a known God-fearing fully Orthodox Jew who is strict about all matters pertaining to his practice of Halachik Judaism. To be a rabbi only requires scholarship whereas to be a shochet it is not necessary to be ordained as a rabbi, but it is required that the schochet be a Torah scholar, who knows the laws of shechita, and is able to pass any inspection of his tools and skills at any time. Thus, semicha ("ordination") is not required to be a shochet. The formal qualification that has been required is called a k'tav kabbalah' ("letter of acceptance/qualification") from a rabbi or rabbis who are familiar and have practiced this field of Jewish law relating to shechita. But this is a good question because the Talmud in Hullin in the first Mishna states in a general fashion: hakol shochtin... ("All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor...") and there are serious and very detailed discussions that are part of many rabbinic commentaries. Most importantly it is crucial to realize that the subject of animal slaughter in Judaism is related to the services and rituals conducted in the Temple in Jerusalem and is originally studied in that context and that is why Hullin is part of Kodashim. Kodoshim deals largely with the religious service within the Temple in Jerusalem, the Korbanot ("sacrificial offerings"), and other subjects considered or related to these "Holy Things". In the temple, as commanded in the Torah, mainly the Book of Leviticus, the kohanim ("priests") were slaughtering animals in order to offer them up as sacrificial offerings. And the priests were neither "rabbis" nor "shochtim" but their roles incorporated both functions. So the slaughter of animals within Judaism is quite a deep and complex subject. IZAK (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, as IZAK points out, certification to be a slaughter is not a matter of Jewish law (Biblical requirements or rabbinic decrees) as such. Any such requirements exist by custom and are based on individual rabbis' and organization's views as to whether or not one is sufficiently learned, skilled, and reliable. In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, a priest was not required to do the slaughtering, it was permissable for ordinary pilgrims, including women, to slaughter their own offerings, and there are various cases discussed in tractate Pesachim which involve pilgrams slaughtering their own passover offerings. Tractate Parah, for example, discusses a dispute about whether a woman can slaughter the Red Heifer. The skill to do this may have been much more widespread than today, connected to a time when a larger percentage of people raised and slaughtered their own food. However, the custom of having certified professional slaughters is an old one, and there are certification letters dating back to at least the Middle Ages. People raising and slaughtering their own animals for their own use is less common today but is still possible and as User:IZAK points out still legal under Jewish law. However, Orthodox Jews generally will not buy or eat meat slaughtered by someone without a guarantee of that person's reliability. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment: Jewish law also permits fathers to circumcise their own sons (see Brit Milah, and at ceremonies I've been to the Mohel asks the father whether he wishes to do it himself to ensure the father is voluntarily appointing the Mohel as agent. A mohel I know said a couple of times in his career the father said he wanted to do it himself at that point -- and although he strongly recommended against it he let the father do it, as Jewish law permits. Although I don't have information reliable enough to put in Wikipedia, these sorts of things do seem to happen at least occassionally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Discussion continues at Talk:Shechita#Shechita qualifications

The discussion here thus far has been reposted there as it is directly connected and would serve the Shechita article well. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Wales

Still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to the The Awareness Center in articles on individuals accused of sexual abuse

A discussion is going on in Talk:Baruch Lanner about whether the article should link The Awareness Center's page on this individual. Since this issue will likely come up repeatedly in articles on individuals accused of conduct The Awareness Center covers, would appreciate feedback on this issue from a wider community. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vicki Polin and her Awareness Center are not neutral parties on issues of rabbinical sex abuse cases, because, among other reasons, she is not bound by anyone or any standard and will publish any and all allegations at the drop of a hat, and has expressed highly-charged personal points of view on these matters, and so therefore neither she nor her Awareness Center's web site should be cited as references, sources, or as an external link in any Wikipedia article except the one about the Awareness Center itself and hopefully in an article about her too that should be created. IZAK (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with IZAK that it's just a "name and shame machine". Linking to the site is only indicated if someone being listed there has had any impact on his/her case. JFW | T@lk 09:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to articles

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Assessment for proposed changes by User Egfrank (talk · contribs) that will impact articles.

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism#Assessing coverage of Progressive Judaism: "I'm wondering if anyone would like to join me in a project reviewing articles for their coverage of Progressive Judaism? My idea is to examine each of the articles in the {{Judaism}} template to see if they give adequate and unbiased coverage of Progressive Jewish thought and practice. It may also be appropriate at this point to discuss what criteria we will use to assess these articles and whether or not we want to create our own Project assessment box for use with Judaism articles. I will be documenting the assessment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Assessment for anyone who would like to help. Egfrank 03:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"

In addition to template {{Judaism}} this would also impact the same articles found in the following overlapping templates:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Project tags

Java has been going round removing project tags from a number of anti-semitism-type articles, most of which don't have Project Jewish history ones either. Eg Judensau, Mein Kampf. I don't have a view but thought you should be aware. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of those tags were added by a bot in a misunderstanding between the participants in this project and the bot's owner. Please see my rather embarrassingly overheated comments in the Chavez section above and these comments on the bot's talk page. From what I can understand of old discussions it was understood at the time this project was undertaken that it would concern religion, and antisemitism would be excluded from its scope. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - does the Jewish history project aim to cover this stuff? Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know, but you're welcome to post an inquiry at that project's talk page. Also, if you look at Category:Antisemitism, I'm sure you'll find most of the pages recently deleted from this project. They may even want to use the services of SatyrBot to populate them into their project. I think most people would agree that those pages have very little to do with the Jewish religion, but may be more relevant to the history of the Jews. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Could I Get a Set of Eyes?

I just created an article on an historically significant local congregation, Temple Beth El (Detroit, Michigan). However, a few things: 1. I'm not sure what, if any, styles should be applied to the article to make it consistent with other articles, 2. I'm not Jewish, so I would like someone who is to take a look at the article to make sure I didn't misinterpret something, and 3. There is a good argument for naming the article Temple Beth El (Bloomfiled Hills, Michigan) (its current location) rather than Temple Beth El (Detroit, Michigan) (its historical location). Anyone got a little time? Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! We can do a redirect to Bloomfield hills, so no worries. Do you recall if the division over (introducing music) involved an organ, or just general instruments? Wolf2191 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh... I think so. Not sure. I'll put the relevant passages on the article's talk page. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Wolf, I messed up the redirect name above. It should be Temple Beth El (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan) , not Temple Beth El (Bloomfiled Hills, Michigan). Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, where does this leave the Jews of Bloomfiled? Kaisershatner (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannukah Bush, Chrismukkah redux

Ok, it seems like I may be the only one who cares at all about this, but I am still pretty upset that the Hannukah template links to "Chrismukkah" and "Hannukah Bush." I am soliciting more views, again. It is my view that the template pertaining to this Jewish holiday should not link to examples of American Jews celebrating Christian traditions, or if you take a less critical view, at least not to examples of American Jews celebrating some completely non-Hannukah-related cultural fads. I am not saying there shouldn't be articles about these things, since they clearly exist, just that the template shouldn't point to them. They also happen to be (1) regional (non)customs, rather than components of the Jewish observance of Hannukah, and (2) precisely opposite in intent from the core rationale of the holiday itself. And just to emphasize this, I have contacted user Remember and made it clear this isn't personal (I appreciate the hard work that has been done in an effort to improve the article). I have a very serious difference of opinion about it (it is my personal POV that (3) it is offensive to link to this; would we link to "Yom Kippur Brunch" on the YK template if some Jews "observed" YK by eating omelettes?). I would like to know if I am alone in this. Many thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas has had a big effect on observance on Hanukkah in the US, and not just among Jews with a Hanukkah bush. The fact that it is treated as a major holiday at all (as opposed to something on the level of Purim), not to mention the gift-giving, is entirely down to the influence of the secular component of Christmas. Perhaps we should really have an article on Hanukkah traditions in the United States or something.--Pharos (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yemenite Jews GA on Hold for minor repairs

see talk:Yemenite Jews Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New Hanukkah footer

Let me know what you think of my new footer for Hanukkah. Remember 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

v • d • e
Hanukkah • חנוכה
Traditions Hanukkah
Maccabean Revolt

Very nice, but:

  1. "Menora" links to a disambiguation page. I can fix that in a jiffy. changed spelling - SJA
  2. "Bimuelos" redirects to Buñuelos. Hanukkah is barely mentioned there - changed spelling, still not sure it's relevant - SJA
  3. "Ma'oz Tzur" and "Rock of Ages" are in two different sections. As mentioned above, they are the Hebrew and English versions of the same song and were briefly considered for merger. So, why have them in two separate sections? - Someone fixed that.
  4. "Media" links to a disambiguation page. Definitely wrong. It should probably be delinked. delinked SJA
  5. Are Saturday Night Live sketches and Adam Sandler movies really the sort of thing for this template?
I think they are okay to add. The SNL skit could go since it is minor but I thought the other movies showed how Hannukah is portrayed in American culture. Remember (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Follow the link to "Society." It's very general and questionably relevant to this context. Should it be here? - Changed

Also, does anyone know why "Chanukah music" spells the name of the holiday differently from the rest of Wikipedia?

Those are about the only problems I can see. I'll make obvious corrections and wait for comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all comments. I put this together rather quickly and I figured others would help sort it out. Thanks for the help. Remember (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice job, should be helpful. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the template is very pretty and has potential. However, I'm not sure I love the popular culture categories/inclusions. In my experience, it's hard to draw a line and you end up with 1000 links to songs, parodies, poems, etc. (I just killed a whole para like this that infested Talk:Gettysburg Address if you want to see one). How long before you have to link the (offensive, IMO) "Hanukkah Harry" character Seinfeld did on Saturday Night Live. Also, I have a problem with "Hanukkah Bush," which first of all, has basically nothing to do with Hanukkah and much more to do with Jews observing a Christian holiday, and secondly, is an American thing, so is limited in scope. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, reading more carefully I see Harry is already in there. I have serious objections to that. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) "Hanukkah Harry is a fictional character, a humorous Jewish counterpart of Santa Claus."  ????? There is no Jewish counterpart to Santa Claus and there is CERTAINLY nothing about the observance of Hanukkah that has a jolly fictional Jewish character portraying a cultural stereotype for "laughs." Please, please remove this whole category. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
By this whole category, do you just mean Hannukah Harry or the songs and movies as well. I would agree that it is typically difficult to draw a line when there are lots of movies, songs, and TV shows. In that case it is best to include the category instead of listing each song or movie (see the Christmas template). However, in this case, there is just not that much Hannukah media entries on wikipedia and so it is not really an issue. Until it becomes one, my feeling is listing these songs and movies works in the template. But I can understand taking out Hannukah Harry since he is such a minor media reference. Your thoughts? Any other opinions? Remember (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Remember, thanks for your fast reply. My view is take out the whole category of media: (1) it is USA-centric, (2) it is the type of category that will grow unbounded and require enormous POV arguments about what to delete/include, (3) as it stands it includes several works that only nominally have to do with Hanukkah (eg, the "Hanukkah Song" which is really about what celebrities are Jewish and not so much about the holiday), and (4) it includes works that are mostly about portraying Jewish/American stereotypes, not about the holiday. Related to this, I am also against including Hanukkah Bush and Chrismukkah on this template. To me this just strikes the wrong chord. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (NB that I too would welcome other views on this).Kaisershatner (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the template should not descend into WP:TRIVIA. The cultural references are not central to the topic and should be removed. Likewise, Hannukah Harry etc are not relevant to the topic. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the media section and put the Hannukah music article there based on the early response. If anyone wants to see how it looked like before the change they can check out this version. As for the Society section, any further thoughts? Remember (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Applause to Remember for your time and effort on this template, plus your good natured acceptance and responsiveness to comments. Personally, I have no problem with inclusion of the Hanukkah Bush and Chrismukkah. After all, assimilation is one of the core traditional themes of the holiday. It might be a bit to Hasmonean of Wikipedia to exclude such syncretism from the template. Alas, we won't be able to editorialize on it either. ;-> Thanks again, Remember! HG | Talk 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Remember, thanks for making the changes. Now I just have to convince you that the rest of my argument is right :) Although HG's comments are clearly meant at least partly in fun, I'm sure he knows that resistance to assimilation is the core theme of the holiday. Somehow, pointing people to examples of syncretism (a nice way of saying Jews abandoning their traditions to absorb Christian ones) is in my view totally backwards for the Hannukah template. If you and/or the other editors here don't agree with that, then I would ask you to consider two more points: one, AFIK both the "bush" and "Chrismukkah" are completely American things. There's no reason a British Jew or any user from anywhere looking at En.wikipedia should have highlighted for them a regional limited cultural fad (one which, no less, is not endorsed by Jewish organizations and which in the case of Chrismukkah was decried by a rabbinical board as "insulting" to Jews and Christians alike). To be consistent you would have to add local Hanukkah traditions from Yemen, Mexico, Russia, or wherever. Two, sure, you might say "Jelly Donut" or "MaOTzur" are equally subjective or random traditions to include, so why not these other ones? The difference IMO is that at least those traditions represent Jews celebrating Hannukah in idiosyncratic or regional ways; in the case of the bush/Chrismukkah these are regional ways in which Jews observe Christmas. I will join in the applause for Remember, both for making the beautiful template and for having the courage to take criticism, and I reiterate that I understand the whole thing to have been done in good faith, but I still strongly hope the remaining links to (non) Hannukah "traditions" be removed. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about this. I figure if anyone else expresses an opinion against this (or no one expresses an opinion for a good amount of time) anyone can feel free to remove the Society section in the template. I am not monitoring this page so I may not respond to further comments here for a long time. Also, I am going to copy these comments and move them to the template discussion page (just so people will know what went on). Thanks for all of the kind words. I really appreciate them because I like to know that my work was useful to others. Cheers. Remember (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment ratings

I just upgraded and expanded the article on Shalom Zachar, which was rated Stub-class and had no importance rating. This article does not appear on the long list of articles that WikiProject Judaism would like to improve, but it did need improvement! How do I go about getting someone to change the quality rating and add an importance rating now that I upgraded it? I have read the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Assessment half a dozen times, and still can't figure out how to do it myself. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment is more or less straightforward. Here it is in a nutshell. An assessment tag looks like this:
{{WikiProject Judaism | importance= mid | class= B }}
(to take my assessment of Shalom Zachar as an example.)
"Importance" rates the article in terms of how fundamental it is to the WikiProject. The choices are: top (i.e. a main topic), high, mid, and low. Keep in mind the wide range of articles under WikiProject Judaism when deciding this.
"Class" rates the article's quality. The choices are:
  • stub
  • start (some good content)
  • B (article with basic good quality)
  • A (excellent article)
and two classes that are awarded based on a review process:
  • GA (Good Article)
  • FA (Featured article).
Hope this helps! --Eliyak T·C 05:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Judaism and ecology could use some work.

Judaism and ecology is IMHO a good start but could use some work. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IDF Chief Military Rabbis

In looking at the IDF's Military Rabbinate article, only Chief Military Rabbi Shlomo Goren has an article. Articles are still needed for rabbis:

  • Mordechai Peron (1968-1977),
  • Gad Navon (1977-2000),
  • Israel Weiss (2000-2006),
  • Avichai Rontzki (2006- ).

Happy Chanukah! Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jephtha/Jephthah

I just reverted a cut-and-paste move of the article from one spelling to the other. I figured this would be a good place to look for consensus on which spelling we should be using. Thoughts? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably with the "h" is better, since there is a letter there in the Hebrew, and (perhaps most importantly) the KJV Bible has it that way. Technically, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) is the place for the question, but it seems that that page is not being used too much just now. --Eliyak T·C 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not just KJV, but pretty much everything else I looked at had it that way. I've put in a move request to get it over to the right location, since I can't do it myself after the cnp move...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Maccabean Revolt

The Maccabean Revolt article needs a lot of work if someone wants to take this on as a project. Remember (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guidance needed at Template talk:Chabad

There has been a sharp increase in the debate at Template talk:Chabad#Controversy Again! as part of ongoing differences of views between opposing editors, some of whom are pro-Chabad POV warriors and others. Please drop by and give this matter your consideration and input. It may help a lot because the way things are unfolding it looks like it may be headed for more serious arbitration which can hopefully be avoided. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, IZAK violates WP:Assume good faith, and disparages fellow editors merely for disagreeing with him. Of course, if his own motives were so pure, then there would be room to ask why he so vehemently wants to tarnish Chabad's image...--Meshulam (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Truth be told Izzak is not the only once labeled anti chabad i myself and lobojo are also being accused by the pro chabad editors as being anti. so more insight from impartial users is desperately needed thanks--יודל (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, excuse me User:Meshulam, how about a little objectivity before you violate WP:NPA here against me. A group of pro-Chabad editors who are violationg WP:OWN and are stonewalling and not allowing and reverting any proposed changes ovee there, even after discussion and attempts at negotiation and compromise. User:Yiddisheryid is correct that it is only right to ask for some input from wise editors here. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews Infobox

There's a minor edit conflict going on at Template:Infobox Jews over whether Emma Lazarus or Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau is more appropriate for the template. Any thoughts from project members are welcome and would be very helpful. DanielC/T+ 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanoch Teller

Please take a look at the Rabbi Hanoch Teller article, as his notability has been questioned by someone who knows nothing about the subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have entered into a dialogue with the editor who may actually know something about the subject but feels that his notability is not established. We are all aware that he has written books, but the article does not support their popularity with sources, and it also tries to establish his notability on the basis of being a shadchan, tour guide and other community-related functions that do not normally justify encyclopedicity. JFW | T@lk 09:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Wolff: I have heard from User Yoninah (talk · contribs) who has said she will improve the article. IZAK (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, she's exactly the right person for this job. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seven Laws of Noah

In the past I spent quite a lot of work on Seven Laws of Noah (7LoN) , and defended it from POV pushers. In the last few weeks, anonymous editors have gradually been heaping in content, mainly in the section Seven Laws of Noah#Christian observance of Noahide Laws. I believe most of this is original research. Until Chabad placed emphasis of the 7LoN, very few non-Jews had heard about it and none were actively observing them. To therefore ascribe "accidental" Christian observance of the 7LoN as "adherence" would be a gross invention unsustainable under Wikipedia policy. Could someone familiar with the details review the most recent edits, and remove whatever is unsuitable? JFW | T@lk 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeshivish vs Yeshivish Jews vs Yeshiva

There are some issues with the Yeshivish and Yeshivish Jews articles. Are two articles neeeded? And indeed is there validity to have an article about a sub-species of "Yeshivish Jews" when we have a Yeshiva article? I tried moving some of the "Yeshivish" info there but was opposed. A discussion and vote has started at Talk:Yeshivish Jews#Merge/s, please share your views. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies needs to be Wikified

Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies is currently listed [5] as an article that needs to be wikified. Article was created 20 February 2007. Article (strongly) survived an AfD in February 2007. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels

Centralized discussion:

Hi Egfrank: Looking at your recent expansion of articles and categories relating to Progressive Judaism creates a number of serious problems of duplication and redundancies. You seem to be conducting a solo editorial campaign of revisionism that creates a false impression that "Progressive Judaism" somehow has nothing to do with Reform Judaism. You are creating articles and categories that is artificially distancing the notions of "Reform" from "Progressivism" from each other which may violate WP:NOR, when they are essentially one and the same thing. For example, you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else. What is this "heirarchy" all about? What is the common or universal scholarly standing of Progressive Judaism vis-a-vis Reform Judaism and vice versa? If they are one and the same thing then they should not get separate articles or categories but should be merged. Is it something like the the split within Haredi Judaism where you have Hasidic Judaism as a sub-group yet distinctly different? Just look at these examples of what you did: The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations? -- By the way, the term Reform Judaism is preferable to "Reform Jewish" since "Judaism" refers to the religion whereas "Jewish" may also mean the ethnicity alone, excluding the religion.) You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to. In any case who decided to make him into a "Progressive" now?, certainly it is not what he called himself and by dint of history and all mainstream scholarship he is regarded as the main "Father of Reform Judaism" almost universally. Thus this last category should have been Category:Reform Judaism thinkers. Unless this mix-up can be clarified, I will ask that the Progressive Judaism article be merged into the main Reform Judaism article, and that the categories be renamed as I have noted above. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerest good wishes and Shabbat Shalom, IZAK 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on my talk, feel free to copy our category thread here. I agree w/Izak about problem w/Progressive "Jewish" vs. "Judaism" nomenclature. I'm also mildly concerned not to overdo the "Progressive" usage. Doesn't this dovetail with a terminology struggle/debate internally? It's important to keep in mind that we want to use the most common names, not necessarily the latest. While Progressive may have traction outside US and UK, it's the US and UK ("Reform" and "Liberal") that set the dominant and mainstream usage still, I think. The US and UK are making efforts to mainstream the term 'Progressive' but they still have a ways to go, esp for dealing with historical aspects, which are crucial to Wikipedia. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: You seem not to grasp that the purpose of categorization is to create greater clarity and organization of topics and the system should not be used to artificially create categories and groups that do not exist, except in some people's minds and imaginations. For example, would anyone argue that Category:Nazism should be "categorized" under "both" Category:Nationalism "and" Category:Socialism , since after all, Nazism is a contraction for "National Socialist German Workers' Party"? Definitely not! because Category:Nazism is not what some fairy-minded "thinkers" may say it is, but rather it is correctly and accurately categorized under clearer categories like Category:Racism Category:Fascism. So the idea with utilizing categories is not to cloud and obscure subjects but to clarify and specify. Thanks again, IZAK 08:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I understand that the purpose of classification is to create greater clarity. Could you please explain what your specific objection to this category is? Do you object to the need to identify a list of thinkers that have influenced progressive Judaism? Egfrank 12:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put though, my response minus citations, boils down to two points:

  • I am merely reporting what is in the literature, not inventing my own revisions
  • This isn't an issue of debate or mainstreaming. The terms "reform" and "liberal" have specific regional and historical meanings. The term "progressive" is an umbrella term that is used when one wants to refer to commonalities that transcend either region or history.
  1. US and UK Reform Judaism is merely a part of a world wide movement that includes 42 countries with local organizations that are variously named "liberal", "reform", "progressive" and "reconstructionist". The world-wide movement has chosen for itself the name progressive, not "reform". Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Israel and Germany have chosen for themselves the name "Progressive" for their local names. These communities may be small in number, but they are historically and spiritually significant for the world wide movement. To ignore the preferred name in an area of historical or spiritual significance is a violation of both WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE.To name things pertaining to the world wide movement based on the popular name in 2 of 42 countries is a form of systemic bias.
  2. Part vs. whole. Because organizations that call themselves liberal and reconstructionist also self-identify as "progressive" we cannot simply replace the term "progressive" with "reform". For a full list of congregational organizations happy to call themselves "progressive", please see the website for the World Union for Progressive Judaism. You can also check the links to regional organizations provided in the Progressive Judaism article.
  3. The term "progressive" is the normative term when refering to the worldwide movement. For example,
    • The international association of liberal/reform/reconstructionist/progressive congregations is called the World Union for Progressive Judaism.
    • Michael Meyer, in his book Response to Modernity, uses the term "Reform" to discuss specific regional organizations that called themselves Reform (Germany, UK, US). However, when discussing Jewish reform in a worldwide context he switches to the term "progressive Judaism". For details please see Chapter 9, An International Movement.
  4. The term "progressive" is a semantic necessity when comparing certain regions. The following excerpt from an article in the weekly teen torah newsletter of the Union for Reform Judaism illustrates the point. In an article titled, What is Progressive Judaism in Great Britain all about? What is it like to be Jewish in Great Britain? How is it different from being Jewish in North America?, the author explains to US Reform teens: Progressive Judaism in Britain is a very vague term, because in Britain, we have two progressive movements: Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism. Liberal Judaism is most similar to what you all know to be Reform Judaism in North America. However, Liberal Judaism represents only a little over 1% of the Jewish community of Britain. Reform Judaism in Britain is still progressive at its core, but is slightly more traditional in its values and practice. An example of this difference is that British Reform Judaism currently does not accept patrilineal descent to define who is a Jew, while Liberal Judaism does.Ģ Reform Judaism is quite a lot larger than Liberal Judaism, having about an 18% stake in British Jewry. There are 280,000 Jews in Britain.

In naming articles I have followed mainstream academic and organizational usage: global=progressive, local=preferred local name. Thus:

If you need more citations I'm happy to help. Egfrank 22:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(OT) Small fact check. There's no way UK Reform is 18x the size of UK Liberal. A digit has got lost in the above. I don't have exact refs to hand, but the ratio is usually put at about 3:2, which would make UK Liberal about 12% if the Reform number is right. Jheald 11:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent. I have been in the midst of correcting papers and exams, plus my daughter's Shabbat School, etc. Anyway, as co-creator (or whatever is appropriate) of this category, I merely want to reiterate what my perspective was, and remains: a place for dialogue about the international progressive movement within Judaism and those Jewish founders, thinkers, religionists, theologians, philosophers and so forth who brought it into existence from the Enlightenment and Jewish Emancipation. This began with a casual perusal of many of the current pages on general topics within Jews & Judaism, and found that they either were tilted in a big way towards the traditionalist perspective or had almost nothing about the progressives.

My first motive was to keep this within the family of Reform Judaism, i.e. all about German classical and North American Reform, but Egfrank rightly posed that it should start out in an expanded way, and I agreed. Progressive is not meant as an attack on non-progressives (read: traditionalists), no more than the traditionalist explanations of everything Jewish isn't meant as an attack on progressive views on the same topics ;) However, progressive is certainly an accepted, descriptive word a) pertaining to the Jewish philosophers of the latter eighteenth century, and their religious reforming successors of the next century, so often attacked in traditionalist material; b) to denote all of the liberal/non-traditionalist branches of Judaism that exist internationally; and c) to explain the rationale behind the liberal views on Judaism, Jews, culture, relationships with other religions, etc. With a lack of credible information and sources about progressive Judaism and Jews, if nothing more this is a forum for sharing ideas, challenging ourselves, and moving the vital links and references from our own heads and libraries into the Wiki world.

I wish you all a fine week. A Sniper 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To reach understanding, we need to separate out the disputed question. (1) Generally, what is the categorizing relationship of Progressive, Reform and Liberal. I agree that Whole, Part (mostly US), Part (mostly UK) works. (2) To what extent should categories be named by the Whole or by a Part? I think this is a judgment call. Personally, I think "Progressive" is a younger upstart and much less common name, even if theoretically broader. So, even if all "Reform Rabbis" could be logically recategorized as "Rabbis of Progressive Judaism", I think that would be a poor call. Let's clarify the criteria for naming categories, e.g. commonality, so we can help label Egfrank's (and others') constructive efforts. (3) Part of the thread above deals with the question of how we might write about verifiably influential thinkers for Progressive Judaism. Currently, that discussion is here. Thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Some questions: Is it appropriate to call a rabbi, cantor or communal leader in the UK liberal or Dutch movement "Reform"? Both local organizations call themselves liberal, not reform. Is it appropriate to call a rabbi, cantor or communal leader in Germany, Israel, or Russia reform? All three countries call their local movements progressive, not reform. And all of the above, liberal, reform, and progressive consider themselves "progressive" even though they differ in the name used locally. For support of this statement, please see citations given above.
Also I'm wondering if you have some citations on the development of the term progressive Judaism and its disputed status as a mainstream word. I think we need more here than personal assertions. Egfrank 10:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On rabbis. In articles, I'd call them as they generally (not by individual idiosyncrasy) call themselves in their country, Liberal or Reform or Progressive. In categories, I'd keep "Reform Rabbis" for now, until Progressive is used more extensively for Geiger Holdheim etc. Of course, categories specifically about a "Liberal" (e.g. UK) dataset might use Liberal. HG | Talk 11:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As regards Gieger, It seems we have some problem of historicity here. Geiger influenced all organizations that call themselves progressive these days. Thus if "influence" is a measure he could be called progressive, reform, or liberal or all of the above. However, if organization is the measure, he cannot be properly called any of these. The organizational entity "Reform" postdates Geiger and he himself was opposed to organizational splits and wanted to reform from within. The same would go for Moses Mendelsohn - even though many consider him the "father of Reform", "Reform" as an organization and even a movement post dates him. Also his own actual position more closely ressemble the current position of modern orthodoxy (really!) than anything called progressive. He embraced social change and considered a very limited accommodation to science when he could find halakhic precedent, but by and large he opposed any change to the ritual practice of Judaism. (source: Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity)
My question was posed concerning "modern rabbis" though not ancient history. I see several problems with splitting rabbis into categories labeled by "reform" and "liberal". UK Liberal is on the left (left traditional). On the other hand Dutch liberal judaism is on the right (more traditional). They are comfortable being lumped together with each other under the banner of "progressive judaism" because this implies a minimal amount of common principles (c.f. Progressive Judaism). On the other hand grouping them together in a category called Category:Liberal Judaism would truely be a category in vein. Their only commonality would be the name and the fact that they were progressive. A mere coincindence of name does not make a valid category. Furthermore if the unifying factor among them is the fact that they both subscribe to a developmental approach to Judaism, shouldn't we name the category after their commonality, "Progressive Judaiam" rather than the mere coincidence of names? Egfrank 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In terms of Progressive not the mainstream term, I base it partly on the article showing nomenclature in the big Reform population centers: "... the terms "liberal" and "reform" Judaism have strong historical and regional associations, particularly to the US and UK. Outside of the US and UK, many congregations prefer the more inclusive term, 'progressive'." Also, it's my assertion based on reading mainstream academic literature and media but I can back it up w/strong evidence (Google Scholar hits 10:1 "Reform Judaism":"Progressive Judaism", JSTOR 12:1, Google web 7:1, Nexis even last 2 years is 5:1 obviously more previous years). Further, based on population, isn't US "Reform Judaism" disproportionately large? This is relevant because otherwise you might strengthen your argument by pleading for "Progressive" as a self-identifying name. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Frequency of use may only indicate the relative frequency with which people talk about their local movements vs. the common concerns of the world wide movement. The contention here is that "progressive" is appropriate when discussion world-wide commonality. Liberal/reform/progressive etc is appropriate when discussing the progressive movement within a particular historical or regional context. It is completely appropriate to say the pre-World War II German Liberal movement opposed the radical nature of the German Reform Movement because in this particular place in time and history those were the names used. On the other hand, if one wants to compare the impact of Samuel Holdheim world wide, one is more understandable if one says something like this: The radical position of Samuel Holdheim was largely rejected by progressive communities outside of the US Reform movement and the UK liberal movement. In this case the word "progressive" provides a clear and succinct way of distinguishing the general reaction from the reaction in a specific region.
To resolve this question I think we need something more than nose counts. They can't really tell us the semantic context. Can you actually provide an academic citation that rejects the use of the term "progressive" when discussing matters in common to reform, liberal, and progressive congregations around the world? Perhaps, you might be able to find an article discussing the history of the term "progressive". When there are real academic disputes about terminology, they can be relatively easy to find. Almost every serious book will begin with a discussion of terminology. That is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Egfrank 12:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee whiz, Eg, do you want to know why I can't "provide an academic citation" about the history of 'progressive'? In JSTOR, there are zero (0) articles found via "history of Progressive Judaism" versus quite a few about Reform. In Google scholar, I only picked up history of Progressive from Rabbi John Rayner. In other words, the "serious" scholarship that discusses terminology, as you say, will itself be grounded mainly in "Reform" nomenclature. I don't think any academic has studied the terminology to address Wikipedia's criteria; however, I'm afraid the burden of proof for verifiability of "Progressive" as the mainstream term is on your shoulders. From what little I know of you, I really respect you thinking and your positive enthusiasm. You can add a great deal to a weak area of Wikipedia. I'd urge you not to drain your energy and time by pushing too hard on "Progressive" within meta-wikipedia (e.g., project, category, etc). Instead, work on the articles and the content. Once those are in place, you'll be in much stronger ground, and gained alot of internal respect (assuming you don't look like you're simply trying to prove a point), and then you can approach the meta questions in a new light. With a friendly tone of voice, emphatically serious and respectfully, HG | Talk 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the good will. HG the question isn't one of frequency - it is of context: what is the correct term to use when discussing the world wide movement rather than the movement in a particular location in time and history. As for providing positive support. I have done that. For example, I provided a cite (above) from one of the leading scholars in the history of the reform movement. As you have observed, he does use the term "reform judaism" liberally in his work and I suspect that whoever cateloged his work probably did it under reform. However, in the chapter where he discusses international expansion, he switches to the term "progressive". Michael Meyer is probably one of the leading academics in the field. So now it is up to someone else to make the case that the term is non-normative. Its not impossible. Just because Meyer is considered one of the leading historians of progressive Judaism, doesn't mean he got everything right. However, when a major historian uses a term in a disputed fashion, there are usually many other historians that will jump on them. As far as I can tell that hasn't happened.
Also at issue is the very existence of an article titled Progressive Judaism and separate from Reform Judaism. Are you saying then that you are uncomfortable with the categories but are OK with separate articles for Progressive Judaism, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism? Egfrank 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Eg, as you may have noticed, it can be a pain in the tuches to add categories, at least for a non-techie like me. You need to know the wiki formatting and you need to have the exact category name handy. I suppose that's one reason to go for simple and familiar names to as many wikipedians as possible. Anyway, I recognize that we'll need those 3 separate articles, and maybe many spin-offs (history, beliefs, orgs, people, etc). I'd much prefer a single category to cover the whole spread, I'm not going to fall on my sword if it's not "Reform Judaism" (though of course I'm right on that! ;-0) but I certainly don't want to have to double or triple categorize each Prog/Ref/Liberal article. BTW, another way to restate my view is that the int'l-integration efforts are still much smaller than the resources, scholarship and discourse on the national level Reform/Liberal movements. Progressive might be technically correct and the future of the movement(s), but I still don't think it's the common or mainstream lingo. Sorry if I missed it, has anybody AfD'd Progressive Judaism? I don't see IZAK or anybody arguing against the article, only the meta pages (project, categories). Regardless, I'm so confident the article is defensible that frankly, Frank (rofl), I ask that you don't waste your time defending the Article -- let any opponent bring an AfD and other editors will do the defensive work for you. Thanks! HG | Talk 16:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
actually User:IZAK did request (above and below) that the Progressive Judaism article be merged onto the Reform article and done away with. Thanks for the reminder to let other users do the work, however, this discussion I wasn't actually convinced there were other users who would do the work. Egfrank 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
pain in the tuches. If there are three names for X, there is no need to assign an article to three separate categories. The standard way of handling naming problems like this is to chose one category as the main category and use soft redirects on the alternate names. I'm happy to show anyone interested how to handled the technical details of this solution. Egfrank 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, See here for the listing for "progressive judaism" from the HUC jerusalem library. It found 847 sources. The combined US catelog (see http://library.cn.huc.edu:8000/cgi-bin/gw/chameleon) turned up 20 thousand books using the search term "aw:progressive+aw:judaism". Perhaps now you can see why I am a little puzzled by the idea that this term is not mainstream. I certainly can see an argument for giving articles two names: one with a soft redirect to the other. I can't see an argument for declaring that the term "progressive judaism" is a disputed specialist term known only to a few readers, is non-notable, and does not belong in wikipedia. Kol tuv, Egfrank 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
By mainstream, I'm alluding to the wikipedia usage, contrasting with a significant minority. Basically, I think most major and reliable sources continue to use Reform (including arguably the big US movement), whereas 'Progressive' is used less. Even the J'lem library, which presumably is switching to Progressive, has more listings under Reform. A "significant minority" is certainly notable and belongs in Wikipedia. But it feels more ideological than encyclopedic (i.e., WP-policy) to try to rename the Reform articles into Progressive ones (or to set up too many overlapping Progressive versions). Anyway, I basically sense that we should keep Reform Judaism as the main article, with Progressive Judaism as a companion piece (even though it subsumes Reform Judaism logically, at least per the Progressive Judaism pov). Likewise, the overarching category should be Reform. Someday this might change, but it should be in response to a shift in public (verifiable) discourse. Best, HG | Talk 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you,HG. Why should the overarching category be reform? How would the reconstructionists or humanists take to that? For they certainly categorize themselves as being within progressive Judaism, but they wouldn't want to be lumped in under Reform. Similarly, I don't know one UK Liberal/Progressive (same thing, same organization) who would want to be categorized as Reform, considering the term means something completely different in their country (as it does not trace its history to the German classical reformers but instead to a simple split in a London congregation). Why does the World Union of Progressive Judaism exist as an umbrella organization to all of the denominations and groups who are progressive if it is all just Reform? because the term progressive is the net, and Reform is one of the fish. A Sniper 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all a question of basic Wikipedia policy regarding notability and sources. Sometimes the fish is bigger than the umbrella, what more can I say? Maybe the US Democratic party belongs to some intl federation of democratic policies, but we don't write and categorize everything by that umbrella. Some umbrellas are more significant, some aren't. Maybe the EU will swallow France, hasn't yet but the EU is doing well. WUPJ is doing well to, but there's a different betw getting USA Reform to sign up and another thing to absorb it, both organizationally and esp in the public discourse that Wikipedia relies upon. I'd like some experienced WP folks besides you, me, Izak and Egfrank to chime in here. We're starting to go in circles on this. Respectfully disagreed with (but not disagreeable?), HG | Talk 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really puzzled. 20 thousand books in an academic library more than establishes notability. The undisputed usage by a major expert in the field and an international orgainzation more than establishes a nuanced mainstream academic usage that switches between the terms "progressive" and "reform" depending on whether the international or local perspective is wanted. The name of the World Union for Progressive Judaism (established in 1926) is ample evidence of organizational mainstream usage. A citation from a teen magazine published by the US Reform movement more than establish popular mainstream nuanced usage. Magazines directed at teens aren't in the habit of making themselves incomprehensible to their readers. You have had more than one person explain to you that "reform" is absolutely appropriate for a specific historical or regional context and that "progressive" is more appropriate in a world wide context, but you insist that absolute number counts are more important than contextual analysis. I don't understand why.

As for WP:UNDUE it could actually be used the other way. The historical origin (German) and the spiritual center of the progressive moment (Israel) both prefer the name progressive. Why do they count less than then more numerous US movement, especially when that movement itself uses the term progressive even when talking to teens? The use of numbers alone and the frequent statement that only US and UK usage counts gives at least the appearance of geographic systemic bias, something that wikipedia is not exactly in favor of. I don't think any of us want systemic bias here. At the very least there is an appearence of systemic bias in the claim that "Reform" should be the normative term because there are more US progressive Jews than any other and they use the term reform.

Many have expressed interest in making this project more welcoming. I don't see how this project is going to feel welcoming to a dutch liberal, german progressive, isreali progressive or UK liberal jew who is told he or she has to use "reform" as the umbrella term for progressive Judaism.

I don't know how to make those who want to make "reform" the umbrella term, exactly how sensitive those of us outside the USA are to being told that US Reform is the norm and for that reason we are not "allowed" to use the progressive Judaism in categories that include non-US groups. People outside the US really do not like having the US be pushed upon them as the norm. This is especially true in the world progressive movement, because the US movement has made some very important decisions that just aren't accepted by other progressive Jews. I don't think you really appreciate how wearing it is to explain to people over and over that Israeli progressive Jews are not US reform Jews - we use different amounts of hebrew, we observe more customs, we have different opinions about intermarriage, rabbinic authority and patrilineal descent. And perhaps you have never heard a liberal Jew give you a lecture about why they are not reform - I got an earful the first time I made that mistake and I'm not likely to make it again. But if you don't believe me, I'm sure User:Jheald would be happy to explain to you how much UK liberal and UK reform Jews like being confused with each other.

 :grin: Which significantly reflects an earful I once got from a UK Reform rabbi's wife that she wasn't a UK Liberal.  :-) Jheald 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

But there is another issue I need to raise and I am trying to raise this as delicately as possible, but it must be addressed. The only people I have ever heard object to the term "progressive" are orthodox Jews. Are those of you who dislike the term "progressive" as an umbrella term really, really, really certain this isn't just that in your orthodox circles you are more familiar and comfortable with the term "Reform"? This is a very smart and well educated group of people who should understand that I and User:A Sniper have more than established mainstream usage, and no one else by User:A Sniper and I are the only ones insisting that the term "progressive" be used in contexts requiring an umbrella term. Is this really about reason, or is it about personal familiarity? We all have communities of dialog where certain terms are more common than others.

The plain truth is this discussion should not be happening at all. There should be no question about the legitimacy of the term "progressive" for either categories or article titles. There should be no question that "progressive" is the proper umbrella term. When I discussed what was going on with Wikipedia at a gathering of progressive rabbis and organizational leaders on Shabbat I was met with incredulity. In more than one case I had to repeat two or three times what was going on. On the idea that I was POV pushing or giving undue weight to a non-mainstream term, I was told by more than one person (with a smile), "congratulations, but you're about 100 years too late".

There is no need for this acrimony. Wikipedia has a technical solution to avoid POV forks when there is more than one mainstream term. We should use it. Kol tuv, Egfrank 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't notability. Nobody disagrees, I think, that Progressive Judaism is notable for an article and perhaps multiple articles, dealing with such contexts as WUPJ, Israel Progressives, etc. Rather, isn't the question about relative notability? For this, it is necessary to look at the sources. It's not about your personal circles or your speculations about mine. By every measure, "Reform Judaism" dwarfs "Progressive Judaism" in the sources. I've already mentioned Google, Google Scholar, Nexis (i.e., major news media), JSTOR. Now I've checked the Harvard Library, British Library and WorldCat. "Progressive Judaism" is notable, but its usage is minor compared to "Reform Judaism." The point is that readers and writers are using "Reform" much more, in general, so I would expect Wikipedia to do the same.
Your point about systematic bias is relevant, but the solution is not what you might expect. Wikipedia doesn't make editorial decisions to eliminate the real world bias within the world of mainstream discourse. Instead, bias is countered by ensuring that (significant) minority views and topics (etc) get adequately weighted covered. (If I recall correctly, the emphasis is on article creation.) So, maybe the mainstream press and academia are biased against the usage of "Progressive" but our role isn't to overcome this bias. (I felt more awkward explaining this to Palestinian and Hawaiian native activists than you, but if it's true for them it's more true for the bias experienced by Israeli (etc) Progressive Jews.)
Maybe the best way to proceed would be to articulate the question(s) clearly and set up an RfC to get some outside opinions. Or maybe some more veteran editors in Judaism can weigh in. Perhaps some questions would be: (1) Should articles describing the history of change-agents (aka progressive liberal reformers) like Geiger and Holdheim be described in terms of "Reform Judaism" or "Progressive Judaism?" (2) Should the WP category of "Reform" or "Progressive" Judaism apply to Geiger et al.? I am curious to see what criteria and policies veteran editors would apply to decide such questions. Yours truly, HG | Talk 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well now that you raise the issue of Geiger - not so easy to classify him. Didn't actually approve of separatist movements. Can be called a reformer, but not necessarily a "Reform Jew". Holdheim on the other hand was very much into the idea of a separatist movement and he belonged to an organization that labelled itself Reform. He can be called a German Reform Jew without a doubt. He is also a German progressive Jew because German Reform is one of many progressive movements. Back to part and whole issue. So either would be appropriate, but German Reform would be more precise. Which should be used would depend on context. If one were speaking broad generalities about all progressive movements, "progressive" would be acceptable usage. If one were talking specifically about the history of the German progressive movement, German Reform would be more appropriate. Again, there is no one answer and in situations where multiple academically respectable terms exist, the normal practice within Wikipedia and within the real academic world is to just accept multiple names an not enforce uniformity. We have technical tools to deal with any POV fork problems. Egfrank 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Egfrank: I find this quote of yours most revealing: "The plain truth is this discussion should not be happening at all. There should be no question about the legitimacy of the term "progressive" for either categories or article titles. There should be no question that "progressive" is the proper umbrella term." When an editor comes on board Wikipedia they cannot assume that their POV will be granted and accepted lock-stock-and-barrel without opposition -- everyone has had and still does have other views to take into consideration. Many editors here wish to examine and explore questions which may seem to be settled in your mind but are far from so on Wikipedia, or in the world at large for that matter. So please keep an open mind, be patient, assume good faith, and try to help us deal with the discussion/s at hand. Thanks so much, IZAK 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK it is not a question of my POV - it is a question of a feeling of disjoint reality between the academics and Jewish professionals I know on one hand and the conversation I am hearing in Wikipedia on the other. The term "progressive" developed precisely to avoid POV issues within the non-orthodox, non-conservative community. Now you are asking me not to use that term and instead use "reform", a term that has loaded significance in that community. I am in an impossible situation. Egfrank 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:HG. We seem to be at an impass here. I have placed a request for feedback at the project for countering systemic bias - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks#WikiProject_Judaism_needs_help_- geographical_bias_concerns. Best, 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Deep Concern

I am deeply concerned about User:IZAK's unilateral decision to delete (not just copy) the above discussion from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism page. Deleting material from a project page merely because one disagrees with the existence of the project is beyond comprehension. Egfrank 08:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. IZAK is a long-time and dedicated leader on WP:Judaism. To be sure, he may himself disagree with the project. Still, I'd assume good faith here. He's moving discussion here because it's a question somewhat external to (i.e. about) the Progressive Judaism project and because IZAK knows more people read this page. Your two-way conversation is getting a bit heated, so -- if you don't mind my saying so -- maybe you'll both benefit from listening to more outside input and maybe you'll appreciate more of each other's concerns. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That makes 4¢. Tomertalk 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. My concern is not about User:IZAK but rather the action itself. Good intentions or not, deleting material is very different from moving. User:IZAK had many other options for insuring wider participation in the discussion of whether or not Progressive Judaism is original research:

  • he could have posted a notice here about an important discussion going on inside another project (this is the normal procedure)
  • he could have proposed moving the discussion and waited for a response
  • he could have placed a note at the end of the discussion (without removal) announcing that he will continue the discussion on this page.

Even well respected editors can make mistakes. I beg you to consider the issue at hand not the reputation of the editors. Egfrank 08:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he post a note about the move, w/the links? In other settings, I've seen reasonable concern expressed about people not posting q's in multiple forums (fora), so it's necessary to delete the old when moving a discussion. (Also, it's not like deleting from a User Talk page. You're an enthusiastic and knowledgeable person, so people started commenting on your personal page. You wisely moved stuff, since it was spreading on different user Talk pages, to a project page. IZAK moved it to a different, broader Project page.) Look, I do think IZAK deserves a certain kavod here. If you really have a concern about his conduct, raise it on his User Page and then go thru dispute channels. Rather than defend IZAK on process, I'd rather have fun arguing against him on the substantive questions! ;--> HG | Talk 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm compelled to agree with HG here. I see no evidence of malicious intent nor improper conduct on IZAK's part here. Moving a discussion may annoy someone, or even "someones", but in the interest of discussing subject matter that extends beyond the article where the discussion began, and avoiding parallel discussions elsewhere, it is better that the content be moved to a more central location. Nothing in IZAK's decision to do so serves, in any conceivable way, to squelch or redirect the discussion. Instead, it serves to foster greater consensus on subject matter that extends beyond the talkpage[s] where the discussion first began. I therefore award 0 points to Egfrank, 1 point to HG, and 1 point to IZAK. Counsel may proceed with cross-examination. Tomertalk 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this was my response to User:Egfrank's concerns [6] and I do wish he would stop trying to split up the discussions and dragging users over to his Progressive Judaism project, it's still too raw and has only two registered users, he is one of them, and its founder : "Hi Egfrank: It was I that initiated this discussion on your talk page [7] because I wanted to have a one-on-one talk with you seeking clarification of significant changes you have been making in the Reform Judaism versus Progressive Judaism arena. Nothing more. I just wanted to get some information from you and see where that would go. However, it was your unilateral decision to then move the discussion here, when many editors oppose the need of this Progressive Judaism Wikiproject which you have unilaterally created basically on your own in spite of pleadings not to do so from editors in the older WP:JUDAISM. You even changed the name of the topic I posted, a Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels to "Is Progressive Judaism OR?" and you decided to move the discussion that I had initiated to a new project that basically only you are involved with (with only one other marginal contributor.) So in order to centralize the discussion so that those Judaic editors who are most active and who already had related discussions with you on this topic should be involved and not confused by having to run from one Wikiproject to another like chickens without heads, it made sense to move the talk to the main NPOV WP:JUDAISM because yours may be tainted by a POV even though you may not mean it that way. See Wikipedia:Content forking and WP:MULTI: "Centralized discussion:...If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." Again, my goal now is to include the best and most active Judaic editors on Wikipedia, without driving them to distraction and inducing frustration in trying to cope with these complex issues. Hope this helps, IZAK 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)" Where do we go from here? Thanks, IZAK 09:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK - if you are going to copy a response, it might be a good idea to copy both sides of the dialog. Just a suggestion. You have my permission if that was your concern... Egfrank 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Egfrank: Since you directed your "Deep Concern" to me here and a few others asked for follow-up (just proving my point by the way, that they are not even bothering to look at the Progressive Judaism WikiProject), I posted only what I had replied to you. Feel free to post whatever you stated here again. No problem. But as I have stated on your Progressive Judaism Wikiproject, I will no longer post any comments on that page in order to avoid these confusing types of run-arounds. Let's keep the discussions centralized over here for the sake of everyone's sanity and to save all kinds of miscommunications. Also, please do not post little notes on the Progressive Wikiproject page that you "propose to do so-and-so and if no-one says anything then it's hey-ho-away-we-go" because that is no way to conduct business when so many other Judaic editors who have no interest in visiting the Progressive project are involved. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK 09:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to all: I repeat the concern is not User:IZAK or a deletion after discussion. The concern is deletion without prior discussion. I don't want anyone sactioning anyone else here. I want an understanding that we should respect project boundaries and discuss things before deleting material.

There is absolutely no disagreement on my part that the "Is progressive Judaism OR" discussion needs to be brought to a wider audience. As for the specific solution, that should have been discussed prior to taking action. There is more than one thing to consider here: in particular the large number of different but interrelated discussions that need to take place on the arrangement of material relating to progressive judaism.

My preference to have them grouped together where their impact on each other can be more easily studied and followed over time. That is merely a preference, albeit a strong one. My deep concern comes from the fact that the pros and cons of where to place the actual discussion were never explored before action was taken. Egfrank 09:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, granted. You have grounds for a gripe. Without prejudice, overruled. I agree IZAK could have opened a discussion there to move the discussion, but cannot see how that discussion could have gone anywhere but in full agreement with his desire to move the discussion to an area where it could receive wider attention. Can we agree to go forward with the discussion where it is now? Tomertalk 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more than happy to have the discussion here. There is no long term damage to the integrity of the either project - when the discussion is closed and archived it can surely be archived under both projects if continuity and history is at issue.

However, please do not characterize my concern as a gripe. There is an underlying issue of respect for different opinions. We have to look at the project culture that made it possible for a responsible and well meaning editor such as User:IZAK to believe that it would be OK just to move the discussion without discussion. That is a culture all of us have created. Egfrank 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Tomer. We should not be like Henry Kissinger did with the North Vietnamese who wasted lots of time negotiating the shape of the table on which to hold the talks...let's hold the talks already without beating around the bush. The bottom line is, why does Egfrank go around creating duplicate articles and categories for Reform and Progressive Judaism if it's only a question of semantics and not content or even form, as I see it? See by the way, WP:POVFORK. I am re-asking my questions to him again:
Hi Egfrank: Looking at your recent expansion of articles and categories relating to Progressive Judaism creates a number of serious problems of duplication and redundancies. You seem to be conducting a solo editorial campaign of revisionism that creates a false impression that "Progressive Judaism" somehow has nothing to do with Reform Judaism. You are creating articles and categories that is artificially distancing the notions of "Reform" from "Progressivism" from each other which may violate WP:NOR, when they are essentially one and the same thing. For example, you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else. What is this "heirarchy" all about? What is the common or universal scholarly standing of Progressive Judaism vis-a-vis Reform Judaism and vice versa? If they are one and the same thing then they should not get separate articles or categories but should be merged. Is it something like the the split within Haredi Judaism where you have Hasidic Judaism as a sub-group yet distinctly different? Just look at these examples of what you did: The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations? -- By the way, the term Reform Judaism is preferable to "Reform Jewish" since "Judaism" refers to the religion whereas "Jewish" may also mean the ethnicity alone, excluding the religion.) You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to. In any case who decided to make him into a "Progressive" now?, certainly it is not what he called himself and by dint of history and all mainstream scholarship he is regarded as the main "Father of Reform Judaism" almost universally. Thus this last category should have been Category:Reform Judaism thinkers. Unless this mix-up can be clarified, I will ask that the Progressive Judaism article be merged into the main Reform Judaism article, and that the categories be renamed as I have noted above.

Can we get some real answers please? Thanks for everyone's efforts. IZAK 10:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was rather saddened by having the information above re-posted in a big box. It seemed more an attack on Egfrank than anything else.
Anyway, the fact remains that North American Reform is but one element to what is described internationally as Progressive Judaism. Although everything that is called Progressive DOES NOT fit in to Reform Judaism (religiously, historically), Reform is a part of international Progressive - this is why there exists an international umbrella organization - see World Union for Progressive Judaism (http://wupj.org/). It would be right to classify Central Conference of American Rabbis as BOTH Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations AND Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations. By the way, only a handful of Reform consider Mendelsohn the father of the movement - this title has been variously bestowed in books and sermons on Israel Jacobson and Abraham Geiger, to name but a couple. More widely Mendelsohn is considered a progressive Jewish philosopher, derided by traditionalists of his day and some modern writers as a conduit to Christianity.
I therefore don't find much validity to the above personal attack, basically due to the fact that merging Progressive into Reform is inaccurate. By the way, 'attack' isn't too strong a word since the inference is that only Egfrank is making these additions and changes, and he is not alone. A Sniper 12:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no "personal attack" on a request for clarification. Getting answers helps, shedding tears does not. Thanks, IZAK 03:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, please understand this is not about where we have the discussion, nor is it even about you personally. It is about how the decision was made. See above my response to User:TShilo12. Egfrank 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Egfrank: I'm not sure what "decision" you are talking about, there have been so many lately. I am not insulted in any way, and I hope neither are you. Editors who wish to explicate the Progressive views and build articles and categories on it, cannot assume that everyone follows or adheres to their base-line knowledge and premises. You need to pay attention to explaining the differences and similarities between Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism more aggressively and clearly, rather than create the impression that you are performing a "creeping annexation" of the Reform Judaism topics and categories by those who prefer the "Progressive" label and POV for whatever reason/s. Most people familiar with Jewish life know what Reform Judaism is in the United States, and do not use and know very little how the Progressive Judaism label is used in the United Kingdom or how it applies to Jews in the USA. This is somewhat akin to Conservative Judaism renaming itself Masorti Judaism in Israel or "Egalitarian Judaism" but it's still a case of six-of-one-and-a-half-a-dozen-of-the-other no matter which way you slice it. So then this scenario of how Reform Judaism versus Progressive Judaism comes across is that ther is not any meat-and-bones to the points, just that in this place they "call themselves" or "are called" Reform and some place else the exact same organizations are called Progressive. There are still no real differences that you have presented so far. Thanks again, IZAK 03:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we really have to explain it ten times that North American Reform (of which I am an adherent, by the way, so that you can see this isn't just Egfrank's opinion) is but one segment within the umbrella of international Progressive Judaism, which also includes US Reconstructionist and Humanist Judaism, UK Liberal & Reform (two separate denominations), European Progressive (Danish, German, Dutch, etc.) and Israeli Progressive? All come under the banner Progressive, as evidenced by the creation of the World Union of Progressive Judaism in 1926 (www.wupj.org). If you go to the WUPJ site, you'll find a listing of ALL the world's denominations under the Progressive Judaism banner, some of whom would never call themselves reform and actually have no historical link to the classical Reform of Germany or the North American version. This isn't a matter of subjectivity, but merely a fact. Orthodox is a term that can mean many different strains within it (Haredi, Modern, Chasidic, etc.), yet I don't hear anyone moaning about its use. Best,A Sniper 22:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
A. Sniper: Indeed I have stated that Orthodoxy is split into no more than four essential and identifiable groupings of Haredi, Modern, Hasidic and Religious Zionist and I have asked how Progressive and Reform Judaism compare to this and that it be clearly stated and explained in articles. But the problem with the "Progressive" label that is coming across on Wikipedia, and which you exhibit right here, is that it (i.e. the label "Progressive") is claimed to be both another name for Reform and at the same time a label that includes other movements not called Reform. This needs to be worked on and clarified, especially since there is a long-standing scholarly understanding (expressed by a number of editors above) that the Reform and the Progressives are primarily just two-sides-of the same coin and not separate streams, and the rest is minor information. Do they have different Halachik codes? Is one more or less "frummer" than the other, etc? That is one of the huge problems I have with the Progressive Judaism article which reads as if it is even inclusive of much of Orthodoxy (something Egfrank tried to do with Rabbi Soloveitchik) and hence the problem of making a fatal logical mistake here is that: "If Progressive = Reform" and "Progressive = Orthodox" then does that mean that "Reform = Orthodox"??? Ludicrous, right? This would then be a totally nonsensical "conclusion" for a so-called "syllogism" because, without going into undue explanations, Reform does not equal Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy does not equal Progressivism as understood here or by most scholars. So we will have to get an intellectual and practical grip on things and tighten up the arguments and categories in order to avoid appearing silly based on flawed conclusions. IZAK 04:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
IZAK it is a question of part vs. whole. "Reform" refers to a part of something larger called "progressive". But see below for details. As for Rabbi Solevetich - he is quoted by reform/liberal/progressive Jews - he has influenced them all - the man is brilliant and smart people are heard no matter what their "label". Every one knows his relationship to orthodoxy. His influence on conservative and progressive Jews doesn't lesson in any way that relationship. Rather it should be something to be proud of.
Progressive is a broad tent - partly because it contains so many views (see below). The definition you complain about is not mine. You may not like that progressive has laid claim to something you consider orthodox as well, but that is a dispute with progressive Judaism, not me. There is no OR here - just exposure to ideas you haven't yet seen. If you don't believe me, I'm more than happy to give you a very long reading list.

I think part of the problem here is that we want to see big differences when in fact we are all trying towards the same goal in different ways. What is really the problem here is that these definitions "orthodox", "progressive" are breaking down barriers that have made each one into an "other". In reality we have a continuum of openness to science, modern philosophy, etc. with haridi jews at one extreme, modern orthodox somewhere in the middle and a huge array of progressive movements fading into a radical universalistic humanistic and secular Judaism on the other. That's what makes these definitions so hard. Egfrank 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Regional Differences between progressive movements

IZAK, the reason why this material is not fleshed out is because it takes time to gather citations and assess multiple viewpoints. And seriously these kind of challenges take time away from the actual work of filling in the details.

But if you'll allow uncited claims, I'll give you a few examples of differences to get you started:

  • patrilineal descent: US reform, UK liberals - yes. Most everybody else: too divisive, no way. And very strong feelings about being confused with anyone who does.
  • gay marriage: US reform, UK liberals - yes, and anything else would be a violation of our obligations to mutual respect and dignity. Everywhere else - at best divided, in some cases actively hostile.
  • intermarriage/rabbinic authority:
    • US rabbinic assembly says no. US congregations say yes. US rabbinic assembly doesn't really have much authority and since congregations wont hire rabbis who refuse to perform intermarriages, de facto the US movement accepts intermarriage without conversion.
    • Israel: Rabbis who perform intermarriages risk getting kicked out the israeli rabbinic association so intermarriage doesn't happen
    • elsewhere: not sure, but maybe User:Jheald can tell us about how UK Liberals and UK reform handle this.
UK secular statute law only licenses rabbis to perform marriages where both parties are Jewish. Rabbis can't marry a Jew to a non-Jew even if they wanted to. But blessing ceremonies (without a chuppah) in shul after a secular marriage in a register office are common, both in UK Liberal and UK Reform shuls. I think attitudes vary from congregation to congregation, rabbi to rabbi. But in general I think UK Liberal shuls are often very welcoming-in of non-Jewish partners. UK Reform may be more of a "broad church" of views. One data point: the former UK Tory political leader Michael Howard was made to feel very unwelcome in his United Synagogue (ie Modern Orthodox) congregation when he wanted to marry a non-Jew. But he was welcomed in by the rabbis of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue at St John's Wood (despite certain differences on his human rights legislation), and can be found dutifully attending there every Yom Kippur. Jheald 11:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Correction. UK Reform's Assembly of Rabbi's say their rabbis cannot officiate in any way at a mixed faith marriage, neither in the shul nor not in the shul.[8]-Scroll down to mixed faith marriages. So no blessing, not even outside a shul. On the other hand, this Glasgow couple found one Reform rabbi who would lead their ceremony, not in shul, so long as they didn't expect him to mention God. [9].
In contrast, in UK Liberal Judaism, as of 2004, "many communities were happy to carry out a mixed-faith blessing... Rabbi Goldstein emphasised that the principle was to make people feel accepted." [10] -- Jheald 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ritual observance:
    • US: everything goes from nothing to totally shomer shabbat, shomer kashrut in a traditional sense. However, the majority of US reform Jews believe rather strongly that religion is a matter of ethics or philosophy and not practice. Yom Kippur - people drive to shul without a blink. Some congregations require kosher food at communal gatherings. Some don't. Tish b'av, Sukkot barely observed except by the most committed. Washing hands is unknown. Birkat hamazon only gets said in shul gatherings and summer camps.
    • Israel: much more traditional. at least some level of kashrut and shabbat observance is the norm though s in the US it varies from person to person. Never seen a communal gathering that had non kosher food. No one drives here on Yom Kippur except the totally secular. All hagim observed as religious holidays. Many people wash hands before meals and say birchat hamazon after at least for Shabbat meals. -- BTW an aside on observance levels: when I first went to grad school in the UK, I was invited to a shabbat meal with an orthodox family. Their rabbi was also there. Before the meal, both he and I got up to wash - the family did not. Started quite a conversation as they tried to understand why I (progressive Jew) was doing machmir things like their rabbi and I tried to understand why they weren't washing their hands when "everybody does it". Ah well. I guess perceptions of what's "ultra-religious" are regional among the orthodox too).
  • history:
    • Germany: disagreements over the level of require observance split the German reform movement into a Reform and Liberal faction at the close of the 19th century. In pre world war II, Germany, liberal judaism was a conservative response to the radical reformers. Both considered themselves progressive. Post world war II, the german movement put aside their differences and united under the banner of Union Progressiver Juden.
    • US: followers of the radical universalist German reformer Samuel Holdheim
    • UK: there are debates about where UK progressive judaism comes from. Meyers holds they got it from the Germans. I've read another author (name forgotton) who argues it arose naturally from within in response to certain issues and predjudices unique to the UK environment. It two split into a more observant (Reform) and less observant (Liberal) faction. Note, IZAK, that in the UK the meaning of "Reform" and "Liberal" are exactly the opposite as in Germany. This is one reason why is it very confusing when someone tries to conflate all things progressive onto the word "reform". Reform UK was still refusing to ordain women when the US Reform movement was debating gay marriage. I'm sure as an orthodox Jew you can appreciate why a UK Reform might not want to be lumped in with the US Reform and why they might only be willing to consider common cause if a neutral term is available. The distancing that you saw between "reform" and "progressive" isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't my invention either. The non-US movements very much want some distance from the US. Your insistance that non-US groups should be called reform rather than progressive is about as offensive to some as expecting "Dati Leumi" to be lumped under the umbrella of "Degel haTorah"
    • Israel: the first congregation was formed in 1958. European progressive and american reconstruction Judaism were apparently the primary influences, though I don't have good sources on this.

Best, Egfrank 05:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating between Reform and Progressive Judaism

Discussion moved here from User talk:IZAK#Clarification by request of User:Egfrank. (Edited to conform to this topic. Here goes):

If you feel that way, I recommend you put that comment on the talk page of the article. As I said, I'm not a fan of discussing articles on user pages. I'll be happy to respond over there. BTW, before making claims of original research, you might want to check sources or read up on the subject. I'm happy to recommend sources. I don't at all get the impression this falls in your area of expertise (no offence meant - you probably know lots of stuff about certain parts of the talmud I've never met even in bikkiut). Egfrank 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • ...thanks for offering to help with a reading list, but sometimes the fresh perspective of an outsider, who is well-informed about Judaism, can help you break away from your preconceived notions on what you hold most dear. I have had to defend the views of Judaism against all sorts of attackers but it has never bothered me to learn from them. And I am not calling you an "attacker" I regard you as a friend, just that quite honestly, as you may have seen, I have not done anything yet, just asked questions, so that I can get a better idea behind your reasoning and why you created the new Progressive categories that seemed to be mirroring the Reform ones. Finally, you may wish to know that my interests go well beyond the Talmud, as you will find out, and I am always happy to learn as long as what I am being taught makes sense and is not illogical. Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews. Just a few small things. Let's keep perspective and not fall prey to believing our own propaganda, something I repeat to myself every day, and I highly recommend it to you as well. Be well, IZAK 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • IZAK, "just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews"? Do you really believe that? Are you willing to discuss this in open court on the wiki project judaism page? I would like to do that. I think it would be a very healthy discussion. Thanks. 08:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs)
      • Egfrank: I am not ready to make a "federal case" out of it yet over there, but I think I am getting there... User's talk pages are more open and less formal. We can speak in generalities. If I wanted to say that on that page I would. I am still trying to feel you out -- without getting a long-winded research-paper as a response. So tell me the truth, do the Reform and Progressive movements forbid the eating of pork and is there any difference between their policies on the eating of pork by Jews? Just a simple question, that may illustrate a point that they are not the heirs to Judaism's heritage as the main Progressive Judaism article portrays them to be. A question that will reveal either the nonsense or wisdom of the Progressives. IZAK 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • P.S. I do not want to subject you to too much agony. I can sense your discomfort. So let me simplify matters. It is well known that Reform Judaism does not believe that the Torah was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai by God. Thus, to them, the mitzvot are not divine and were just man-made social rules in response to various situations of ancient times. There may have been a time that eating certain foods was unhealthy. But now, that there is good hygene, and that the Torah's commandments are regarded as concocted by mere mortal men in any case, the dietary laws do not apply, except perhaps as quint "customs" if so desired (like eating a latke or two on Hanuka), but there is no obligation by Reform Jews to keep the Torah's ancient dietery laws. That includes the prohibition against eating pork, which for Reform no longer applies. Thus no Reform Jew is obligated to not eat pork, and indeed many a Reform rabbi enjoys a hearty breakfast of bacon and eggs with her non-Jewish partner. Have I missed anything here? Tell me, please! So now, having clarified that, and not expecting a denial from you, can you please tell me what is the "official" policy about Jews eating or not eating pork by Progressive Judaism that differs in any way from what Reform, teaches, practices and does without any apologies? Thanks so much, IZAK 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually I very much want that conversation over there. I do not feel safe having it on a user page. best, Egfrank 08:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank-you IZAK for moving the discussion here. Egfrank 09:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Before we begin the discussion, I would like to make sure I understand your position. You believe that reform/liberal/progrssive/whatever Judaism is:

  • just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews.
  • just a movement to rationalize that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh
  • just a movement to rationalize that mizvot do not have to be observed by Jews.
  • is being falsely characterized as upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition"

Do I have this right? Egfrank 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No. None of the above as regarding "just" (why and where did you latch on to the "just" word I wonder?) Do not draw the wrong conclusions. It's more complicated and complex obviously. Oh come on. I am choosing a few basic issues as an "acid test" by way of examples to illustrate my argument. Or am not allowed to do that? IZAK 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • OK. I'm willing to agree these are acid tests. Can you explain the more complex view? I think it would help me and others respond more coherently. The word "just" came from your response above (here at the beginning of the first line). It would help if you could clarify what you did mean by the word "just" when you used it up there. Also what did you mean by "rationalize"? Egfrank 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, now I see it, but before I dwell on what I said, let me repeat that I was not asking you to agree that these are acid tests, I was asking if it is true that Reform Judaism permits Jews to eat pork, since it does not believe in the divine origin of the Torah and therefore Reform does not view the mitzvot as given by God to Moses to be observed by the Jewish people forevermore, thus: (now comes my quote:) "Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews." Meaning that at the end of the day, after all the great philosophies have been expounded by all the great thinkers and pontificators, simply put, a Reform Jew will eat a pork chop with no qualms because Reform Judaism permits it, and my question to you is, is the Progressive view any different to Reform's reformed view of classical Judaism? (To me it seems there is no difference. -- Sure some individuals keep kashrut if they want to, but it's not required by Reform or Progressivism.) No need to make this more complicated than it is. As I said, I was not looking for term-paper type responses from you and I was not intending on giving any myself at this point. IZAK 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of frustrating you, I want to quote the description of a leading theologian in the reform/progressive movement, Eugene Borowitz. He is a professor emeritus at HUC in New York. This discussion is not really about my opinion of Reform/Progressive Judaism or even yours (both of which would be POV and OR), but rather its opinion of itself. The following is from the introduction to his book: Renewing the Covenant: A Theology for the Postmodern Jew:

It seems to me that Jewish spirituality has been decisively molded by six momentous folk experiences: Covenant, Settlement, Rabbinism, Diaspora, Emancipation, and post-Holocaust disillusionment....The first and most formative experience in the development of Jewish spirituality was entering into the Covenant...Judaism revolves around the Covenant experience of choice, promise, demand, redemption, and mission. Our liturgy reviews it every day, our calendar follows it each year. Believing Jews live in the reality of the Covenant.
The second phase in the growth of the Hebrew spirit occurred in the land of Israel. Between 1250 and 500 BCE a family become a nation experienced settlement, kingdom, the establishment of the Temple, social division and decline, prophecy, the loss of ten tribes, the conquest of Judah and destruction of the Temple, exile, and most startlingly, a return to the land and rebuilding of the Temple.... These events and writings greatly amplified the Covenant, reaching a climax in visions of a Messianic Day when all humankind, lead by the people of Israel, would finally serve God fully and freely.
The third decisive stage in Jewish religiosity began when, some centuries after most of the biblical books were composed, our people created the religious life described and advanced by the writings of the "rabbis".... In the classic rabbinic texts, law, halakhah, intertwines with spiritual teaching, aggadah, together creating a religious way that seeks sanctity through educated participation and characterizes all succeeding Judaism.
Our Diaspora existence of the net thirteen centuries engendered the fourth step in our growth...In the face of hostility we created rich patterns of family and community life to sanctify our inner existence...We began to systematize Judaism in legal codes and philosophic structures while also developing the speculative mysticism called Kabbalah.
...Emancipation revolutionized Jewish spirituality, for whenever Jews were permitted to modernity, they did so avidly, and uncomplainingly accepted its accompanying secularization...In sum, non-Orthodox American Jewish spirtuality, in ways typical of every modernized Jewry, now sought human fulfillment through Western culture rather than through the Written and Oral Law....
The sixth period in Jewish spirituality resulted, as many have suggested, from Hilter's murder of six million Jews and the existence of the State of Israel. Once Jews could confront the Holocaust in its own satanic fullness and see it as the terrifying symbol of humankind's demonic energies, they identified Western culture as a fraud....The slow but steady growth of this consciousness has been the basis of the surprising emergence of an explicitly religious concern in postmodern Jewishness; against the predictions of the pundits, God again claims our attention.... The bulk of our community now finds itself spiritually situated halfway between uncritical modernity and undemocratized traditionalism. We are searching for a new understanding of the transcendent ground of our ethical and ethnic commitment; we have made a postmodern turn to our people's millennial Covenant. (pp. 1-6).

I see something more here than someone who is just rationalizing his decision to eat/not eat pork. Do you? Again, if reform/progressive Judaism is something more that the three litmus tests you proposed, how would you characterize it? Egfrank 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Honestly I don't care what he says. You have not answered my question. I know about all these grandiose rationalizers, no doubt he probably had bacon and eggs for breakfast too as he was preparing for that speech. This is the clincher: "In sum, non-Orthodox American Jewish spirtuality, in ways typical of every modernized Jewry, now sought human fulfillment through Western culture rather than through the Written and Oral Law...We are searching for a new understanding of the transcendent ground of our ethical and ethnic commitment; we have made a postmodern turn to our people's millennial Covenant" a verbatim quote that confirms Borowitz is an apostate Jew according to Judaism. I have asked a few times that you not post term paper length answers with lengthy quotes from writers in them. Stick to the discussion points between us. I have asked you to tell me if Progressives are any different in the way Reform allows its adherents to eat pork and you have not answered me. Instead you throw up Borowitz's sayings as if quoting from Mao's little red book that have no bearing or validity in terms of normative Judaism. So therefore I am assuming that the answer is that there is absolutely no difference in their rejection of the divine origins of the Torah and the obligation of Jews to keep the mitzvot. I am also very disturbed when I read that you are biased and that you intend to disintegrate the Reform Judaism article merely to rename the whole subject as Progressive Judaism, see User:Egfrank/Workroom#Progressive Judaism: "Reform Judaism - too long - try to split into subarticles and then eventually into disamb page that points to articles and organizations that have refered to themselves as "Reform Jews" and "Liberal Judaism - short, but should also probably be a disambig page - there are a lot of countries where the prefered term is "Liberal" - the name isn't the exclusive property of UK judaism. Also it is the name of a book by Eugene Borowitz" --- So it seems that you are planning to totally destroy any real semblance of Reform Judaism articles so that only "Progressive Judaism" should rule the roost. By the way, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns you admit about yourself in a "Statement of my own bias: I am one of the editors in favor of the use of the term "progressive". I am also an active progressive Jew born in Uganda, raised in the US and living in Israel. So I may not be representing the other position fairly." So that there are serious WP:COI, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues here that you cannot avoid. By any chance do you work for the World Union for Progressive Judaism in Israel? This is getting rather personalized from your end and you may have to explain how you can continue with all this wholesale vast changes. You can rest assured that I am in no way connected with Reform Judaism, and I speak as a concerned Wikipedia editor trying to assume and practice WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. Thanks again, IZAK 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I do not work for the World Union for Progressive Judaism. I am simply an articulate progressive Jew who has as much right to write about Judaism from the progressive perspective as you do from the orthodox perspective. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that both views must be represented. Are you contending that they should not be? Egfrank 11:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Good, I don't work for anyone either. Don't twist my words. I am saying that you are flooding Wikipedia with the Progressive Judaism POV and twisting all the Reform articles and categories in the Progressive direction, a unilateral move on your part that reeks of a POV approach. That is what I hold. I can't say it any clearer. I assure you, and as you can see, I am not a Reform Judaism proponent or advocate, but I do not believe that you have the right to destroy a topic based on your Progressivist POV, and as you admit yourself in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns: "Statement of my own bias: I am one of the editors in favor of the use of the term "progressive". I am also an active progressive Jew.... So I may not be representing the other position fairly." I couldn't have said it better myself. IZAK 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
        • So if I understand you correctly, in your opinion, Borowitz is not a valid source for defining Reform Judaism because he sounds too "progressive". Do I have it right now? Egfrank 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Nope, that is not what I said, I am saying that quoting Borowitz does not help us in deciding why we need to have duplicate categories and perhaps some duplicate articles about Reform and Progressive Judaism. That is still the only essential question which I can't seem to get a clear answer to. Really, without any grand philosophies. IZAK 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Hello? I don't think the two of you need to clutter up this page with this discussion. Indeed, I'd suggest you move most or all of the above back to your Talk pages. If you have a question to pose to the overall group, please do so clearly and then step back and wait to hear what others say. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, I tried to keep it on my talk talk page but Egfrank insisted that it be brought over here. She claimed [11] she would feel safer here... IZAK
IZAK is right - I did ask. IZAK presents a view of progressive/reform/liberal judaism that I thought (and think) bears discussing by all of us. There was no intent here on either side to have a personal spat. IZAK's view may be welcome to some and offensive to others, but in either case it is notable and shared by many more people than just IZAK.
One issue I think needs to be resolved by this project is just how much we are willing to let IZAK's viewpoint color the project wide understanding of progressive/reform/liberal Judaism. For example, IZAK dislikes Progressive Judaism article because he feels that associating that definition of Progressive Judaism with the Reform movement because
  • it is so broad it could include modern orthodoxy
  • it claims to describe the opinions of Reform Jews and makes it look like Reform Jews love Torah and want to uphold it. His contention is that this can't possibly be the case because their real agenda is rationalizing the eating of pork and other breaches of halakha.
The first point (overly broad) is something we can and should discuss together in a forum where there are many people from many different movements (multiple points of view).
The second point raises some uncomfortable issues of negative bias that should also be deal with openly and not hidden on user talk pages. Egfrank 08:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may say a few words. Egfrank is mish-mashing and quoting me in bits and pieces from different discussions. Too much violation of WP:LAWYERing methinks. Whatever she quotes me as saying were part of lengthier more detailed often more personalized informal discussions on a variety of issues so I resent that she takes it upon herself to "sum up" my views as if I was on trial and arrives at "conclusions" I neither meant nor stated as such, intended to convey, or even adhere to. Has she never heard of the concept of Devil's advocate in order to clarify the views of one's debating partner? She has the audacity to state: "One issue I think needs to be resolved by this project is just how much we are willing to let IZAK's viewpoint color the project wide understanding of progressive/reform/liberal Judaism" when the exact same challenge can and must be levelled against her at this stage with all of her active POV Progressisve edits (when it should be noted, I have not even made one edit to Progressive Judaism articles, just wishing to have discussions first, so I do not deserve being accused of things I have not done.) Could it not just as easily be thrown back at her quite legitimately and asked "One issue I think needs to be resolved by this project is just how much we are willing to let Egfrank 's viewpoint color the project wide understanding of progressive/reform/liberal Judaism"? One could reproduce her own wording and throw the challenge back at her: "For example, Egfrank dislikes Orthodox Judaism because xyz." Honestly, I am not really concerned about the aims and merits of the Reform and Progressive movements and I could care less how many of the mitzvot they do or don't keep or how much Torah they may or may not study. That is between them and God, for those of them that believe in God. My only concern is as a Wikipedia editor, and I will repeat them again here for the record. I don't care about anything else. Let Reform (or any) Jews eat pigs, cows or vegetables or whatever they want, I don't care! The only thing I want answers to are in the box below, that's all!

Hi Egfrank: Looking at your recent expansion of articles and categories relating to Progressive Judaism creates a number of serious problems of duplication and redundancies. You seem to be conducting a solo editorial campaign of revisionism that creates a false impression that "Progressive Judaism" somehow has nothing to do with Reform Judaism. You are creating articles and categories that is artificially distancing the notions of "Reform" from "Progressivism" from each other which may violate WP:NOR, when they are essentially one and the same thing. For example, you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else. What is this "heirarchy" all about? What is the common or universal scholarly standing of Progressive Judaism vis-a-vis Reform Judaism and vice versa? If they are one and the same thing then they should not get separate articles or categories but should be merged. Is it something like the the split within Haredi Judaism where you have Hasidic Judaism as a sub-group yet distinctly different? Just look at these examples of what you did: The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations? -- By the way, the term Reform Judaism is preferable to "Reform Jewish" since "Judaism" refers to the religion whereas "Jewish" may also mean the ethnicity alone, excluding the religion.) You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to. In any case who decided to make him into a "Progressive" now?, certainly it is not what he called himself and by dint of history and all mainstream scholarship he is regarded as the main "Father of Reform Judaism" almost universally. Thus this last category should have been Category:Reform Judaism thinkers. Unless this mix-up can be clarified, I will ask that the Progressive Judaism article be merged into the main Reform Judaism article, and that the categories be renamed as I have noted above.

It would also help if Egfrank, A Sniper and Jheald read up on this: For categorization purposes on Wikipedia, one normally works from the general movement and idea and then looks for "subcategories" to see which institutions and bodies can be put into the more general or ""parent category", see Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create categories and especially Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create subcategories: "Let's say that you wanted to make the category called Roses into a subcategory of the category called Flowers. Step 1 - Go to the page called [[Category:Roses]], and click edit this page. Step 2 - Place the text [[Category:Flowers]] within the body of the [[Category:Roses]] article, and save. Finished! Roses is now a subcategory of Flowers, and [[Category:Roses]] will be visible on [[Category:Flowers]]. Therefore it is a key to determine which the greater parent category is here? Reform Judaism? Or Progressive Judaism? I am from that school of thought, as are a number of editors here, that Category:Reform Judaism should remain the parent category and that there should not be duplicate sub-categories merely based on names rather than on true differences in ideology, but now Egfrank disagrees and you make incorrect inferences from institutions rather than from ideas history, seems to me. Thanks again for giving this matter your serious consideration. Thanks a lot! IZAK 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IZAK, with all due respect, I and others have actually answered many of your questions that are within the black box already, on this very page. I assert that the general category is Progressive Judaism, regardless of whether the current page is exhaustive (it isn't) or not. I want you to know that I am not trying to foster any sort of agenda in why I make this assertion. It is based only on data. Reform would be incorrect to use as the main category because it refers specifically to the movement started in nineteenth century Germany and referred to by various monickers internationally today (in the UK: Liberal or Progressive, North America: Reform, Israel: Progressive, Europe: Progressive). However, this very Reform movement is but a part of a wider movement/classification/identity called Progressive Judaism. Progressive Judaism contains not only those stemming from Reform that I have just listed but also denominations, groups and strains that have nothing historically to do with the Reform movement I've just described: Reconstructionists, UK Reform, Humanists, etc. Some of these groups would actually object to being called Reform, although they are perfectly happy being referred to as being a part of Progressive Judaism. There are certainly flaws with both current pages, and probably it has led to confusion, and I cannot excuse any edits that further cloud the issues - however, it is still historically accurate to stick Reform within Progressive, but not the other way around. Hope this helps. Best wishes, A Sniper 16:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Reform or Progressive be the main umbrella article/s

IZAK, I don't understand. Why is it so important to you that whether the main umbrella article on non-Orthodox Judaism is called Progressive Judaism or Reform Judaism? It's not even your personal position anyway. It seems to me that Egfrank has put down some pretty solid reasons why Progressive Judaism is the more appropriate wording -- much the same reasons, in fact, as why the group gathered round Lily Montagu's dining table in 1926 came to that view. In contrast, I don't think I've seen from you yet a single substantive reason why you object to the term Progressive Judaism. So: what's your problem?

As to your question about pork, I think most Progressives would agree that if you think that is the most important thing to you about Judaism, then you have picked up a pretty stunted idea of what Judaism is.

For what it's worth, I think most UK progressive rabbis of whichever stripe probably do broadly keep kosher - though I suspect they may not be too fussed about whether their milk has a stamp from one of the Orthodox beit dins or not. On the other hand, here's an interview I wikilinked yesterday into the article on respected UK Liberal Rabbi Julia Neuberger, where she says that she's not particularly bothered about the dietary laws, and is quite happy to eat shellfish for example. What I've heard some UK Liberal rabbis emphasise rather is the ethical element - was the animal humanely treated? was the land sustainably managed? (was the land justly occupied?) I suspect some of them might rate an Organic mark from the Soil Association rather more highly than a Kasher stamp from the London Beit Din.

On the other hand, as Egfrank has set out, other groups under the Progressive umbrella take a much narrower position. Whereas with UK Liberals their attitude has been characterised "Is there a good reason for xxxx tradition, to continue to uphold it?", in UK Reform the attitude has been characterised "Is there any good reason why xxxx tradition should not continue to be upheld?". And there are other groups, members of WUPJ, who would take an even higher view of traditional halachic decisions. Even so, I think they would all see Ethicism and Spirituality as more important than Legalism (never mind legalistic loophole hair-splitting). And that's a general take on Judaism with a history that goes back well before the year zero CE. (Cue the prophets, anyone?)

But lumping all these views together as "Reform" (i) serves to confuse; and (ii) is seriously U.S.-centric. The word all these groups identify on is "Progressive". Jheald 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Jheald, my questions to Egfrank remain very focused, and have nothing to do with all the details you mention. Let me focus even more what I want to know from User:Egfrank: "...you created Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers with articles in them that pertain to Reform Judaism more than anything else...The Central Conference of American Rabbis is the arch-Reform rabbinical body, yet you have on your own placed them in Category:Progressive Jewish communal organizations, when surely that should have been Category:Reform Judaism communal organizations?...You put the main Reform Judaism institution of Hebrew Union College into Category:Progressive Jewish higher education, should that not have been Category:Reform Judaism higher education instead? You then place Moses Mendelssohn into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers, which is actually quite nebulous because the term "Progressive" could have so many connotations in light of the Haskalah milieu Mendelssohn lived in and was responding to..." Can we get some specific answers please? Thanks, IZAK 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Categories are there to help survey Wikipedia's coverage and to help readers find articles on similar topics. Shouldn't the UK Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues be categorised alongside CCAR? And shouldn't Leo Baeck College be categorised alongside Hebrew Union College? And if they are, then shouldn't the categories more appropriately be named for Progressive Judaism, rather than Reform Judaism? Jheald 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Your logic fails me. You seem to think that the "premise" to an argument is this-or-that institution, when it is not. Institutions reflect movements and policies which originate with ideas and philosophies. For categorization purposes on Wikipedia, one normally works from the general movement and idea and then looks for "subcategories" to see which institutions and bodies can be put into the more general or ""parent category", see Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create categories and especially Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create subcategories: "Let's say that you wanted to make the category called Roses into a subcategory of the category called Flowers. Step 1 - Go to the page called [[Category:Roses]], and click edit this page. Step 2 - Place the text [[Category:Flowers]] within the body of the [[Category:Roses]] article, and save. Finished! Roses is now a subcategory of Flowers, and [[Category:Roses]] will be visible on [[Category:Flowers]]. Therefore it is a key to determine which the greater parent category is here? Reform Judaism? Or Progressive Judaism? I am from that school of thought, as are a number of editors here, that Category:Reform Judaism should remain the parent category and that there should not be duplicate sub-categories merely based on names rather than on true differences in ideology, but now Egfrank disagrees and you make incorrect inferences from institutions rather than from ideas history, seems to me. Thanks again for giving this matter your serious consideration, IZAK 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • But I hope you are starting to appreciate that there are also a number of editors here, particularly from outside the United States, who see Progressive Judaism as the broader idea, and the greater parent category -- Progressive Judaism being the Category:Flowers as it were; and articles relating only to Reform Judaism in the United States belonging in the Category:Roses, when there are sufficient articles to populate such a category.
        • I still don't see why you have a problem with Reform Judaism being part of Progressive Judaism. But maybe a way forward would be category names something like Category:Reform and Progressive Judaism, Category:Reform and Progressive Jewish higher education, etc ? Jheald 09:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Jheald: You have hit the nail on the head, this is indeed the best solution. IZAK 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jheald: From all the readings of the articles on Wikipedia, neither Reform or Progressive can claim to be the sole "umbrellla" labels on Wikipedia. And inasmuch that Reform (as a distinct name and grouping) cannot deny Progressives a place in the sun, certainly what goes under the Progressive label cannot displace the Reform to the point that "Reform" will disappear as a name and movement leaving only a Progressive name in place on Wikipedia. Thus, what is required is a balance as well as identifying where the two names and movements of course, intersect and where they differ and with all that follows from that. The rules of WP:NOR cannot be suspended because someone has a wish or a trend to impose the Progressive name and brand at the expense of the historically established name of Reform Judaism. If you carefully read the two articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism (as they stand right now) you will see that the two concepts and "movements" have major differences as well as great similarities, when attime sthey are identical and at other times they differ only in name but not in substance (that was why I cite the example of eating pork by Jews, both movements do not disallow it.) This is the essence of the objection I have, Wikipedia should not lose long-established articles related to the Reform Judaism name merely because pro Progressive Judaism POV-warriors have appeared on the horizon. By the way, the fact that I am speaking up about this is proof enough that I do not limit myself or function under my own personal views, so bringing that up is most unprofessional and demeaning to me as a long-time Judaic editor of all subjects relating to Jews and Judaism on Wikipedia.IZAK 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What above statements by IZAK seem to suggest is that some Jews are so focused on rules that ethics get lost entirely. I was personally offended by some of the above statements and think that a NPOV on any subject dealing with Progressive Judaism is an impossibility for this user. That more users involved in this project haven't objected to what is there for everyone to read is a real shame. Regards, A Sniper 12:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Sniper: Don't focus on me, focus on the arguments and the content of the discussions here. I have never said what you claim, I was using some sharp examples to get a point across. No-one was discussing ethics, an entirely different subject. So please do not twist or change subjects to what I never even said. Why get offended? This discussion was a private one between me and Egfrank but she asked that it be moved here so I obliged that is why it may have a more mundane tone, but the contents of what we are discussing is key nevertheless. We are discussing ideas and implications, no-one is obligated to follow your or my or anyone's notions since Wikipedia is not censored. Just to note, up until now I have not added single word to any articles about Reform and Progressive Judaism nor to their categories for many years so your scare-mongering is uncalled for, unjustified and unfair. This is a talk and discussion page where people can be open and frank, but when I edit articles or categories I totally adhere to WP:NPOV, and if you find any place that I don't or haven't, point it out, rather than making false accusations about what I have never done! Thanks a lot and I look forward to discussions with you rather than personal criticisms of me. IZAK 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • IZAK, for progressive/reform Jews ethics and kashrut are not entirely separate issues - see Jheald's comments above about sustainable agriculture "hechshers". Egfrank 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I did not say that they were "entirely separate issues", I was saying that the subject of ethics was not being discusseed and nothing about how they may be connected for all Jews not just Reform and Progressives. As for "agriculture hechshers" that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, and I will not deal with useless tangents. IZAK 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreed, you did not explicitly say they were "entirely separate issues" - however, I think that is a reasonable implication when you sidestepped User:A Sniper's complaint by saying that you were asking about pork not ethics. In any case, for User:A Sniper and many progressive Jews, your question about pork is going to be hard to understand [addition: if you ask it without reference to ethics - Jheald ]. As I tried to explain with the quote from Borowitz (obviously without success), progressive/liberal/reform Jews understand view practice as an expression of Jewish commitment rather than the definition. The core commitment is to the values and ethics expressed in the prophetic and rabbinic tradition. Varieties of practice are accepted because they are considered a matter of personal interpretation in light of careful and educated reflection on the deeper ethical commitments. Hope that helps, Egfrank 06:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
            • So simply put, both Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism do not object and allow Jews to eat pork, ergo there is no difference between them bar vague announcements about this or that ethic, therefore there is no reason to place Progressive above Reform since both have equally abandoned classical Jewish law as it has been praticed for the last 3000 plus years. IZAK 07:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Progressive Judaism topics under discussion

There are a variety of topics under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism. They might be of particular interest to some of the members of the wider judaism project. All are invited to attend. I personally have no personal objection to moving those discussions to this page if there is sufficent general interest. However, despite my vocalness I am not the only member of that project. Given that fact, I do ask that the decision be discussed first with time permitted for other members of the project being given time to respond.  :-). Egfrank 11:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Progressive and Reform -- articles and categories

I'd like to make a brief intervention here. We've been asking participants in WP:Judaism to weigh in on some questions about how to handle articles and categories dealing with phenomena that may be called "Reform" or "Liberal" or "Progressive" Judaism. It's not easy to sort out how to editorially organize the articles, and categories, and what to name them.

However, some of the discussion above has devolved into a dispute between two people. I would like to move out much of their discussion/bickering. I'd move it to either delete, archive, or at least move upward (to outdated discussing territory). In other words, I'd like to refactor the page -- or let the 2 people do it themselves and save me the work. Does anybody support (or object) to such refactoring here?

Meanwhile, if the discussion can be done calmly, I'd like to suggest we continue the conversation. If the discussion is likely to involve inter-personal and off topic disputation, I'd suggest we table the question for a cooling off period. During this period, I'd like to ask everyone (esp involved parties) not to edit war -- i.e., don't try to achieve your POV by renaming, creating, moving or aggressively editing articles. Who thinks we should continue and who thinks we should give it a break?

On my end, I've tried to clarify and explain the questions at the page where Egfrank asked for feedback at the project for countering systemic bias. I hope my comments there are constructive, even though I may have made some mistakes. Here's the current link. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with HG. Some of the comments you can read if you scroll above I found personally offensive, and I have a thick skin. I don't recall ever bashing the Orthodox, or making light of their beliefs, rituals, habits or reason for existing. And to be told that I should merely stop shedding tears and get on with editing, well, where is the decorum in that? A Sniper 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest having this discussion in one place. Perhaps commentators might want to discuss in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns since any conclusion this WikiProject comes up with might be disagreed with by a conclusion there. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Shirahadasha, I'm playing along. I've made a proposal there -- it won't satisfy either Egfrank or IZAK, but maybe they can live with it, and I think it's close to what most of us would consider reasonable. Friendly amendments, esp by uninvolved parties, most welcome! (Still, I'd guess that the CSBias folks won't be so excited by this question, and someday soon we'll need to move the discussion back here.) Adieu, HG | Talk 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I changed my mind. I don't think it's proper to call this "systematic bias" so I've addressed that aspect of the question and moved to close the discussion there. I'm afraid that means moving it back here, right in our faces, but I think it's unhelpful (and perhaps makes us look petty) to bring up our rhetoric/naming dispute in a forum dealing with serious oppression issues. HG | Talk 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The forum also covers less oppressive matters such as linguistic articles that ignore the thousands of languages other than English. Also from the project page:
The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contrubutrors' demographic group(s), manifest as imbalanced coverage of a subject. This project means to control and (possibly) eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and point of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles)
Seems to me that the above is a perfect description of the "naming dispute". The editors who want to use the term "progressive Judaism" want to prevent an omission of a notable viewpoint, namely that of those who consider "Progressive Judaism" either a primary or secondary religious identity. Furthermore they contend that perpetuating this omission (by insisting that "Reform Judaism" be the umbrella term) reflects a cultural bias towards the USA where "Reform Judaism" is the primary identity and "Progressive Judaism" the secondary identity. Egfrank 23:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Flare up of Progressive vs Reform dispute

There has been a flare up in the dispute, discussed above and elsewhere, over "Progressive" vs "Reform" terminology and related articles. Specifically, there is a disagreement about whether the editing of Progressive Judaism has been covering the same ground as Reform Judaism and, as a result, turning into a POV fork on the same Jewish branch/movement. In addition, an advocate for "Progressive" created German Reform movement (Judaism) by removing content from Reform Judaism and prefacing the content in terms of the "progressive movement." I've filed an AfD on the article and a Wikiquette alert on the dispute. Any calm participation, esp by uninvolved parties, would be welcome to help bring the dispute back into conversation. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I think you're overreacting. If you take a deep breath, and hang on for a moment, there are some very valid reasons for "summary style" at Reform Judaism.
  • The article is considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended.
  • Summary style allows the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first.
  • Having a separate article on German Reform movement (Judaism) is a good idea in its own right, as there are a lot of articles on e.g. German reformers which can now link to the appropriate subject matter directly.
  • This is entirely orthogonal to any question of whether to call anything "Progressive" or "Reform". Creating German Reform movement (Judaism) makes sense in its own right. Jheald 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) LOL, I missed the other fork/spin-off action that you guys made. See Reform Judaism (United States). If I'm over-reacting, why didn't you discuss such moves as requested?! Thanks. HG | Talk 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me best to deal with both spin-off/forks at the same time. So I submitted an AfD for what's now called Reform Judaism (North America). Currently, it looks like there are two parallel overview articles on this branch of Judaism -- Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism -- both pointing to same two spin-off/forks. I hope these AfD's will enable the broader community to reach consensus about what to do with the Reform Judaism article from which these spin-offs were taken. I hope I've handled this fairly and I apologize and accept responsibility if I'm mistaken. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever direction people want to take Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism, these spin-out articles will make things easier. Jheald 00:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jheald who has done us all a great favor. The Reform Judaism (Germany); Reform Judaism (North America); Reform Judaism (United Kingdom); and Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom) articles are valid spin-offs that happens all the time on Wikipedia. These are all good moves, valid historically, and should be the basis for a long-overdue upgrade of articles and information relating to these modern movements that broke with Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Jheald and IZAK. I think no time has been given for us to rectify matters and we can't all live at Wikipedia 24/7. It is our intention to make each spin off distinct, as they are historically. In the end, there will be relevant, independent pages for each group, and Progressive Judaism will be expanded to demonstrate its umbrella status. thanks for your patience as we find time to work on each page. Best, A Sniper 00:10, 05 November 2007 (UTC)
Um Sniper, the question of whether Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism is the "umbrella" remains unresolved by User:Eheald's good work on creating regional articles. We shall have to agree to disagree on that one. IZAK 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
IZAK - the article, although in stub form, has laid claim to being the umbrella article for over two years - ever since RH edited your original description of Progressive Judaism. That would make "umbrella status" the status quo until we resolve this. That being said...We all understand that material currently being developed may eventually be refactored after the resolution of the dispute. Egfrank 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of shalom bayit, I think we need to work though and end this umbrella/no umbrella dispute. To get there we should work together for the time being on

  • a) a choice of venue for outside help - we are clearly at an impass
  • b) a draft describing the dispute and the help we need so we can make the proper requests for help

Egfrank 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand the issue. Progressive Judaism covers denominations of Judaism that have nothing whatsoever to do with Reform Judaism. It would therefore make no sense to make Reform the umbrella. Please someone explain to me the rationale (once again) that we should stick groups such as Reconstructionist under the heading Reform. It simply isn't correct. However, all of these groups consider themselves as being within Progressive Judaism, hence their constituent memberships within the World Union of Progressive Judaism. I also don't follow how outside help is supposed to resolve an issue we can clearly talk through together as Jews. I certainly wouldn't want a wiki bureaucrat voting on a decision for an area they know nothing about, and which the names can be confusing. Best, A Sniper 10:49, 05 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't the quality of our arguments. I agree we've made good and compelling arguments and am at a loss why they aren't satisfying to others. However, others are at a loss why we don't understand them. So the "issue" IMHO isn't our arguments (or theirs), but rather whatever is underlying our inability to understand one another. Until that gets dealt with our editing will from time to time get interrupted with things like the recent AfD storm. Egfrank 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. (Due to lack of time, I can't write more now. Please see my comment on the AfDs. Basically, I feel I made a mistake and am sorry. I would pick up on Jheald idea (sorry if I'm misreading) that we discuss how/whether to merge Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism into a single parent article. Thanks.) HG | Talk 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • May I remind everyone, as the one who started this discussion, that the issue is not about one parent article! Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism get separate articles, perhaps with {{Distinguish}} or {{Distinguish2}} templates of some sort on the top of each page, or perhaps it is high time to create a Reform/Progressive/Liberal navigational template like the {{Chabad}} template, as User:TShilo12 has already suggested. Rather, it is about what the correct parent category should or would be. It seems that while everyone has been shouting, User:Jheald (as usual) has come up with a solution, when he states above: "...a way forward would be category names something like Category:Reform and Progressive Judaism, Category:Reform and Progressive Jewish higher education" (which is similar to some of my suggestions.) I agree with Jheald's solution. Thank you, IZAK 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Izak, I'll discuss the category proposal but please do not object to my wanting to discuss merging. Regarding the Category:Reform and Progressive Judaism, would that be the single category for the movement or a parent of both? In other words, would you disallow separate Category:Reform Judaism and Category:Progressive Judaism? If it's the single category, then I would ask: Are we choosing this category name because it meets WP policy criteria (e.g., most prevalent name) or because we can't resolve a naming dispute? (FYI: "Reform and Progressive Judaism" is quite rare compared to either separately.) As a stopgap measure, I can live with the neologism category title because I think the dispute outcome depends on how we handle the articles.

Ok, now I'd like to discuss the importance of whether to merge (or not). There are hundreds of articles that link to reform Judaism. Are you saying that those articles should now link to both Progressive Judaism and reform Judaism? For instance, Jewish views on evolution states: "...Reform Judaism came to accept the existence of evolution as a scientific fact." Should we change that to "progressive" or both? While I'm curious about how you would distinguish the two, I'm more concerned about dealing with the large overlap. Won't most of the history of the "reform" and "progressive" be the same as well as most of the beliefs/practices? Thanks, HG 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (ec) Oh, now I see reform Judaism no longer describes its beliefs or practices, and its history consists of spin-off links with no narrative continuity. Not sure that there's much point or invitation to discussion. Still, I am curious: How do the "progressive" editors distinguish "Progressive Judaism" and reform Judaism for purposes of editing the two articles? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem is that Wikipedia requires articles to begin with a capital letter, so there's no way to distinguish between the "Reform Judaism" denomination, which some international organizations have no formal or legal connection with, and the "reform movement in Judaism", which they are part of. In the numerous other articles, references to "reform" generally refers to this broad, umbrella sense. Reform and Reconstructionist are generally dealt with separately. I understand Liberal Judaism in the UK often goes unmentioned. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that concern settled by Reform movement (Judaism) or simply by using a small 'r' as appropriate? The issue isn't merely the article name, it's links and uses of that name throughout wikipedia. Because the movement is internally conflicted over its institutional names, does that mean Wikipedia shouldn't use the most prevalent (or self-identifying) name? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The movement has been in agreement about their collective identity since 1926 when they formed the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Furthermore, the mission statements of each region (cited in the opening sentence of Progressive Judaism) each express unequivocal support and affiliation with "world-wide Progressive Judaism".
I think you might be confusing historical and regional differences in the naming of local movements with being "internally conflicted" about world-wide collective identity. Has any group publicly proposed renaming the WUPJ to "World Union for Reform Judaism"? Can you cite a verifiable example of a notable modern dispute among Progressive Jews over the term used for the world-wide collective identity, i.e. something where one group is explicitly rejecting the name "Progressive" (despite membership in the WUPJ) and the other accepting? Egfrank 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, I think we need to name the movement with what best fits our criteria for naming articles. This means we want the most common, prevalent name in discourse and a self-identifying name. There is relevant data that can support either "progressive" or "reform" movement nomenclature. For instance, a greater number of country-affiliates use a "progressive" title and most of the membership population lives and identifies within "reform" affiliates. I suggest that we try to present the data, maybe put the different data variables together in one spot, and discuss it, maybe RfC it. Does that sound like a good way to proceed?

We may also want to distinguish officialdom vs common usage. It is my sense that even the World Union and even the Israeli, though they officially uses "progressive," has internal ambivalence about the terminology. For instance, Beit Daniel, The Center for Progressive Judaism in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, says that it "strives to be a model of Reform Judaism."[12]. The IMPJ says "Progressive Judaism in Israel is in some ways more traditional than in the Diaspora. ... Classical Jewish texts and Rabbinic literature play a more prominent role in Reform education and synagogue life. ... Like Reform Jews worldwide, the members of the Israel movement value..."[13] Kibbutz Yahel is still "reform".[14] Interestingly, even the top World Union leadership used "reform" more in a very public letter (April 19, 2007)

"Dear Prime Minister Olmert, On behalf of the entire leadership of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, and all members of the international movement of Reform/Progressive Judaism, we are compelled to express our shock ... We urge that you speak up on this issue, loudly and clearly, in the spirit of our meeting last month during the World Union’s international convention in Jerusalem, and that you work together with the Reform movement to promote mutual respect and Jewish solidarity. ... We urge that you speak up on this issue, loudly and clearly, in the spirit of our meeting last month during the World Union’s international convention in Jerusalem, and that you work together with the Reform movement to promote mutual respect and Jewish solidarity. ... we are obliged to inform you of the urgency with which global Reform leaders are looking to you to take a public stand and provide an example to the rest of the world’s religious and political leaders. ... Steven M. Bauman, Chairman Rabbi Uri Regev, President (WUPJ)" (bold added)[15]

Likewise, the World Union's own brochure has 20 uses of reform, 12 uses of progressive. (for instance: “Through online newsletters, Internet correspondence and the World Union’s Web site, individuals connect daily to discuss a wide variety of matters – both religious and secular – all in pursuit of the common goals of the worldwide Reform movement.”) The Union's youth group brochure has 8 uses of reform, 3 uses of progressive. (For example: “TaMaR’s annual international gathering in Israel is an 8- to 10-day program designed for delegates in their 20s to learn, experience and discuss issues of interest, while paving the way for the future of young adults within their Reform communities.” TaMaR stands for Tnuat Mashimim Reformit.) Anyway, while it's interesting that the World Union itself makes good use of "reform" wording, I am more interested in the overall usage in sources available to our readers and editors. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

HG, these are pretty weak examples:
  • Beit Daniel, Kibbutz Yahel: refer to local congregations and should be presumed to be speaking in local terminology. We've already established that local terminology may differ from terms used to refer to the world-wide collective identity, e.g. Europeans often use the term liberal when talking about their local congregations.
  • Tamar (and Netzer) - yes they use the word reform in the name, but the acronyms have taken on a character as its own apart from its origins. Much more telling is the usage of "progressive" and "reform" in this newsletter focusing on youth: Reform is only used in connection to US and the UK. Progressive is used when reporting on events in all other countries.
  • Uri Regev's letter: also weak, but particularly interesting in the context of our debate:
    • It is pretty clear from context that "Reform" refers primarily to the USA. How do we know this? All of the communal organizations listed in the letter (URJ, ARZA, HUC, CCAR, WRJ) are USA institutions. Not a single institution outside of the USA is listed. Even the Zionist organization is USA - ARZA rather than ARZENU (the international umbrella organization of which ARZA is only a part).
    • The letter was written to express "shock at the recent outrageous comments of Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu on Israeli radio to the effect that the Holocaust was caused by, and was punishment for, Reform Judaism".[16]. It was Rabbi Eliyahu who used the term reform. Given that the holocaust happened in Europe, I doubt Rabbi Eliyahu was talking only about USA Reform Jews.
The only thing this quote proves is that (a) some Orthodox Jews see all liberal/reform/progressive Jews as "Reform" and could care less about what they call themselves (the European Progressive Jews of the 1920's and 1930's were calling themselves Liberal). (b) Progressive Jews see Reform as primarily meaning USA (and maybe UK or Israel) even when context should have told them otherwise. (c) Under attack, Progressive Jews will happily put away concerns about regional respect and political correctness and stand with solidarity with the name chosen by any other Progressive Jew - liberal, reform, or "purple-with-green-polka-dots".
Do we really want to reject the official self-chosen name of a community in favor of an umbrella term that is favored by Holocaust slanderers, associated with a disregard for local identity, and used in-common only as a response to communal attack? Egfrank 08:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interpretation, Eg. While I don't agree with every nuance (or your tone), your basic observations are astute. However, if you don't mind my saying so, your reading of the data as local or US/UK-oriented helps explain why 'progressive' is not so prevalent and the best name for the parent article could be "reform movement after all. Let's assume you are right that the World Union leaders, brochures, etc are focused on their USA/UK "Reform" constituents. That WUPJ caters to the USA by talking about global Reform leaders and worldwide Reform movement. That the Israeli Beit Daniel, Kibbutz Yahel, etc use "Reform" for local identity. Why is this happening? Because local or national-denominational identity is the most prevalent, common and forceful identity for Jews in the reform (progressive/liberal) movement. Although functioning as the World Union's wording, 'progressive' seems to be subordinate to national-denominational identity and may be more of a formal or nominal affiliation. For instance, the Reconstructionists are formally 'Progressive' but it does not seem to be their primary self-identification (they should be mentioned in any article about reform, regardless of the title). Plus, we have to factor in the 800 lb gorilla in the room, American Reform and its impact. It seems that "Reform" institutions, denominations and local synagogues (or kibbutzim) are the most dominant force in the reform landscape. This creates a strong bias within and beyond the movement toward American usage of "Reform" language. Not only do the World Union's leaders and brochures need to be responsive to the denominational weight of Reform, so secondary literature is also heavily tilted toward 'reform movement' language. I suppose the historical antecedents and historiography of the "reform movement" reinforce this impression. In sum, "Progressive" is salient at the national-denominational level in many places (e.g., Israel) and it is the title of an international federation, but has the official wording caught on? Maybe, if measured in terms of the number of national affiliates (many quite small). On the other hand, by every other measure of prevalence we've investigated -- population of reform movement Jews (80+%), in library catalogs, on the web, major news media (Nexis), tertiary sources (encyclopedias), secondary source indices, and scholarship on the movement -- the most common way to describe this overall religious phenomenon is the 'reform' wording. I see no harm in your asking us to defer to the official umbrella term, but judging by our criteria the most prevalent overall term, admittedly arising from historical and local/national roots, would seem to be something like either "reform Judaism" or the "reform movement". Whether or not you agree, do you see how I'm evaluating the situation? All the best, HG | Talk 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your criteria is "most prevalent". As for Wikipedia's: see WP:Google test, WP:Bias, Wikipedia:Bias etc. I see warnings about geographic bias and confusing popular misinformation with verifiable fact. I don't see anything about rejecting a notable and geographically unbiased name in favor of hit counts. Egfrank 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
According to naming guidelines, I do think the "common"-ness or "prevalence" of an article name is quite important and probably determinative. Here is an excerpt from our guideline:
"The three key principles are:
  • The most common use of a name takes precedence;
  • If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
  • If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves."
As you can see, while I may be mistaken, it isn't my criterion to focus on prevalence of usage. In my view, "r/Reform movement" is the most common name and it takes precedence over the "official name" of the umbrella organizational entity (i.e., "Progressive Judaism"). Anyway, the above naming guidelines is the basis for my good faith effort at evaluating the situation. HG | Talk 05:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Note, too, that our guidelines mention "A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English." (emphasis added) The guideline then lists methods including: Google hits, Major English language media, and Reference works. Besides these, I've also examined Secondary literature databases and Library holdings/ classifications. (As above, I even started analyzing the WUPJ's own usage.) Hence, my reliance on this data has been done with the intent of following Wikipedia procedures in the event of naming conflicts. Thank you. HG | Talk 05:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
But it is still incorrect. There are Jews in denominations within the Progressive movement who would be insulted if lumped under the name Reform. Isn't it time to move on? Best, A Sniper 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
One humble suggestion would be for Reform/Progressive Judaism, with a note that while the two phrases often coincide, sometimes they don't. Jheald 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
User:HG that policy only applies when the two words have the *same* meaning. In this case the two words don't. Also WP:Google test explicitly says that decisions based on google hits need to consider issues like geographical bias and context. When I did a top 40 (Non wikipedia) hits to check what the most prevalent meaning associated with the phrase "Reform Judaism" was: 10% referred to UK reform and 90% referred to US reform. The only two may-bes would be a US sponsored belief.net site which doesn't specify geography (but can be presumed IMHO to be speaking from a US perspective) and the shamash site which does cover world wide judiasm but (a) states it is using north american terminology and (b) explicitly says that "international speak for Reform" is ... Progressive. So I would think that the most "prevelant" international term for the world-wide movement is still progressive. But I don't always count right, so check for yourself. :-) Egfrank 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it sounds like you're agreeing that prevalence is the criterion. You are raising a good question about whether the terms refer to the same meaning (hence, article topic). So then we need to start looking at the various methods of checking prevalence. It's find to start with google but I don't understand how you've interpreted the results. I see more than 500,000 ghits on "Reform Judaism" so how did you decide which refer to US reform? And, since US reform is about 90% of the movement anyway, how do you know that such references aren't a metonym for the worldwide movement? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Prevalence is irrelevant in this case because there is also an issue of geographical bias, different meanings, and self-identifying terms. Even Shamash says that "progressive" is the correct international term. "Reform" is just not the way the movement refers to itself internationally on a day to day basis. And wiki policy is to use self-identifying terms unless the self-identifying name is in a foreign language (e.g. Japanese vs. Nihon-Jin) - see [[17]].
I gave the results only to illustrate just how *not* the same the two words are. As for how I got them: simple - look at the first 3 pages of google hits. Those are the pages that google thinks you most likely mean when you want something on "Reform Judaism". I don't think the ratios will change very much if you look at 5 or 10 pages.
I still don't see why though you are so convinced that progressive jews don't want to be called progressive jews, or if you are convinced, why you would *want* a name other than the one they have chose for themselves. You are dealing with real living people here, not animals in a zoology book. I really think you need to give this a rest, as User:A Sniper says. Egfrank 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that Reform (either the North American or British versions) are but a part of progressive, HG, and there are OTHER denominations within progressive that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Reform. Have you tackled this dilemma your position presents? Or should Reconstructionists be lumped within a category that they have nothing to do with? Wikipedia is about accuracy. Egfrank has provided every conceivable morsel of info to bolster the undeniable fact that Progressive Judaism is the umbrella to which Reform, Reconstructionst, Liberal, etc. fall within. Let's move on now and continue editing. Best, A Sniper 13:06, 07 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Sniper: Please do not be so dismissive of HG. He has presented lots of hard facts and information, which you and a few editors on Wikipedia cannot dismiss. Sure, some people may like the Progressive label, but others do not. To the world at large the word Reform means something whereas Progressive sounds like fig-leaf for something else. Nothing is resolved as far as that is concerned. IZAK 13:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuum

As a direct result of issues debated here, and the way they were debated, another long debate was held at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:IZAK. It is re-posted here to ensure that major points made by all the parties not be lost od deleted(updated till--> IZAK 12:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

Relying on the Wikiquette Alert regulars to properly archive this discussion, Izak, I've removed your reposting. It's also feasible to leave a diff here. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. IZAK (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion at Wikiquette Alert, mentioned by IZAK above, is archived here. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)