Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Project Setup Status

We have lots of work to do to get this going. Please add your ideas...

[edit] Publishing our project

[edit] Membership

  • add membership section to project page, DONE - Egfrank 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • created custom user box and participant's category page, DONE - Egfrank 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal/Reform aliases

[edit] Article selection/Scope

What articles are in our scope? Do we include Renewal and Reconstructionist? (Reconstructionist congregations are sometimes members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism

We need to decide how to do this. A tentative list includes:

In my own brain, I was wanting to try and focus on those denominations coming out of German classical Reform (North American Reform, Israeli Progressive, UK Liberal, European Progressive in Germany & DK, etc.). However, I'm not at all opposed to including Reconstruction, but that wasn't necessarily the original aim. I'm open to whatever the folks out there want to focus on. For example, I figure that, sooner or later, the 'middlegrounders' in Masorti, UK Reform, Conservative, etc. will have their own project to add to...maybe even Reconstructionists. Chag Sameach, A Sniper 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project priorities

To be discussed and determined.

[edit] Membership recruitment

How do we find members? How do they find us?

[edit] Please join discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism

Hi! Would appreciate it if you would consider, and perhaps join, the discussion linked in the title. One proposal is to decommission Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and consolidate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I fully agree with User:Shirahadasha because splitting up the Judaism projects by Jewish denominations has never worked in the long run on Wikipedia and they tend to die out once the initiators leave whereas the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, with over 200 members, is all inclusive, non-judgmental, and editors do not feel that they have to join or be pressured by any POV within the project. IZAK 07:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Geiger and Leopold Zunz

The following was copied from the talk page of User:Egfrank so that others interested in Geiger and Zunz may participate in the discussion: 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you found the source for Giegers stance in the blood libel without me (I've been away a bit.) I question the inclusion of Zunz among the fathers of the Reform movement. Here is a citation from JE:

Although his "Gottesdienstliche Vorträge" was the very rampart behind which Reform could securely and calmly beat back the attacks of its opponents, Zunz showed little sympathy with the movement, because he suspected its leaders of ecclesiastic ambitions, and feared that rabbinical autocracy would result from the Reform crusade.

The violent outcry raised against the Talmud by some of the principal spirits of the Reform party was repugnant to Zunz's historic sense, while he himself was temperamentally inclined to assign a determinative potency to sentiment, this explaining his tender reverence for ceremonial usages. His position was by no means Orthodox in the usual sense, however, even in regard to the ritual practises, etc,

In general, Zunz was an interesting figure (I hope to expand on him next). I would classify his stance as more in line of a proto-conservative. I await your opinion befor making changes. Best.Wolf2191 02:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to be very careful reading the current structure of Judaism back into the time of Geiger and Zunz. Geiger too was against separatist movements, at least according to Michael Meyers reading of his personal correspondence. (see footnote in Abraham Geiger article for reference). Meyers makes the point that the 19th century saw a reforming movement that includes Samson Hirsch, Samuel Holdheim and everyone in between. Eventually these coalesced into distinct rabbinical and congregational associations, schools, scholarships, and philosophy, but that was later.
The association between thinker and "stream" of Judaism I think comes very much after the fact. Orthodox and conservatives like to claim Hirsch because he provides a way to have a philosophical dialog with modernity while still embracing Jewish particularity and tradition. American Reform Jews and UK liberals like to claim Geiger and Holdheim because they made bold moves in liturgical reform and give philosophical grounding to a radical reinvention of Judaism. As for Zunz, Jacobs, Jastrow, and others - preferences come and go. Conservative and Progressive Jews interested in Halakhah very much need Zunz and Jacobs because both (along with many others) openned the way for a structured dialog between historical criticism of text, modern sensibilities and the traditional halakhic process.
The non-halakhic re-embracing of tradition and Jewish particularity currently spreading across Reconstructionist, Renewal, and Progressive movements would also be impossible without Zunz et al. The thought of Abraham Joshua Heschel, the existentialist, and Mordechai Kaplan, the transvaluing "volkist", have both figured greatly in this non-halakhic revival. Neither could have developed their methods of assigning meaning to tradition without the critical analysis of tradition that Zunz et al. introduced. Egfrank 05:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis (Heschel for example is taken by the Orthodox (he was strictly observant and very pro-halacha) and by the Conservatives (he taught at the JTS)). Not sure how we can clarify all this.

Take this sentence from the Zunz article: A leading figure in the history of Reform Judaism. I think that its factually true (as you described in your response) but misleading as it fives the impression that he himself was supportive of Reform.

I'd like to reframe that sentence in a way that makes clear his importance to the Reform movement (e.g. Zunz'z critical historical analysis was critical to the development of Reform...) while still making clear that he himself was personally more to the right, at least in regard to ritual practices etc..

There is an important distinction to make between the Liberal movement in Germany (which was more in line of what today is called conservative) and the Reform movement as it developed in the US. Good Shabbos.Wolf2191 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your care in specifying the "Reform movement as it developed in the US". This is a critical distinction. Much of progressive Judaism (i.e. members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism) is and always has been more closely aligned to "conservative" than American Reform. Outside of Germany, the only other movement that ate up Holdheim so uncritically was the UK Liberal movement and they are much smaller than the other UK progressive movement, UK Reform. The UK Reform movement, along with the Israeli movement, the canadian movement, and many others are frequently compared to the conservative movement.
On a related note, one problem with trying to characterize someone as proto-conservative is that the US conservative movement is something of an aberation. Most of those who rejected the radical universalism of Samuel Holdheim call themselves progressive today and are members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Only in the USA did the reformers split into two separate organizational bodies that see themselves as entirely separate streams of Judaism. I had a professor at princeton who taught the history of American Religion and held that it was something peculiarly American about the idea that splits in belief should result in denominational splits. His focus though was Christianity and I don't know if he ever applied his theory to the US Jewish landscape.
I also like your idea of clarifying his position on ritual practice, rabbinic authority, or any other idea where the German Reform, US Reform, or UK Liberal movement went left of Leopold Zunz. However, I do think we need to keep in mind historicity here. Zunz was long dead when these movements came into existence. Perhaps he was turning over in his grave at some of directions they went, but then again maybe not. He wasn't alive to consider all the issues and participate in the debates. The most we can really say is that he didn't go as far as they did.
A related historical problem is the US Reform movement itself. True to its reform roots, its practice and beliefs are something of a moving target. So its possible to say US Reform judaism in 1850 or 1900 or 1930 or 1967 or 1999 believed/did/endorsed X. It's impossible to say that the movement as a whole throughout time did so.
My vote is to go ahead and fix it - however, you should probably consult User:A Sniper first - the actual line you want to edit is his. I've added some citations here and there but none to the Zunz article (Sorry, I should have checked that a while ago - I forgot myself - you just raised such an interesting issue and I enjoy talking with you when I have a chance because you are so knowledgeable). Shabbat shalom, Egfrank 14:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! (וכן למר) I would say that we have a consensus that we avoid "labeling" the more religiously complex of historical figures and instead to stick to a more nuanced discussion of the subjects opinions on the various issues. (I would imagine this relates to the discussion below) Shavua Tov Wolf2191 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my absence. I have done work on the Israel Jacobson, Leopold Zunz and Abraham Geiger pages, but not even a fraction of what I hope to do. From everything I have read, and I DO NOT make any claims of knowledge in any Judaic/Jewish subject OTHER than the Reformers of the nineteenth century and the impact on modern-day Reform, Zunz was vital to the movement and, actually, to what Reform Judaism is today in North America. Since none of this is meant to be user's thesis, I would point out the way Zunz is characterized on the net, from credible sources: Leopold Zunz proposed something else. He suggested that Jews study their history and learn of the great achievements of the past. While Zunz was implementing his ideas, a movement began (Jewish Virtual Library, from their page The Origins of Reform Judaism);in their course on modern Judaism, the University of Calgary propose that, between the early reformers and Zunz, there existed an alliance with Wissenschaft des Judentums movement. E.g. Leopold Zunz's studies of history of Jewish preaching and names -- intended to justify introduction of sermons, adoption of European names. (Religious Studies 369, University of Calgary, as easily googled); although Zunz had objections to aspects of the reform movement, The point of his protest against Reform was directed against Holdheim and the position maintained by this leader as an autonomous rabbi. In the same article, which someone actually quoted from above in an attempt to distance Zunz from reform, it still states that his position accordingly approached that of the symbolists among the reformers who insisted that symbols had their function, provided their suggestive significance was spontaneously comprehensible. He emphasized most strongly the need of a moral regeneration of the Jews. (JewishEncyclopedia.com) This is why I include Zunz - and the references I've just used were simply the easiest to obtain by anybody doing a web search. As for Mendelsohn, it is really hard to find a Jewish philosopher more despised by some traditionalist perspective writers, and if his positions weren't progressive for their time, I honestly do not know what is. Anyway, despite being incredibly busy (aren't we all?), I intend on continuing in the work and hope we can all do this together. A Sniper 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you active again. Are you reacting to wolf here or to User:IZAK and User:HG below? I think Wolf actually agrees with you that Zunz influenced the US Reform movement and I don't believe Mendelsohn was mentioned by Wolf. On the otherhand, User:IZAK has claimed that Mendelsohn was Reform, but not progressive. I believe User:IZAK's opinion comes from his either-or insistance that progressive is either (a) a decietful attempt to rename Reform or (b) something completely different from reform. (He is also claiming that the CCAR and HUC would object to being called progressive). If so, I think you might want to respond below underneath his claims. I agree these claims defy belief.
But now that you talk about Mendelsohn....Some food for thought (I like to stir things up:-)). Michael Meyer (professor HUC) includes Mendelsohn in the influences that lead to the Reform movement, but stops short of calling him the father of reform Judaism. In fact, he argues that the modern group of Jews that most resemble Mendelsohn's position are the modern orthodox! Meyers argues that Mendelsohn was a reformer of Jewish culture, but not Judaism itself. He supported the engagement with modern philosophy and many social changes. However, he lacked the notion of religious development that is so central to modern progressive Judaism in the US and elsewhere. (Response to Modernity, pp. 13-14) Egfrank 05:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I am about to go to bed on this end of the planet, but wanted to give a quick answer. I quickly read the whole page where I was shocked that there had been such a flurry of dialogue, so I didn't specify who had said what. My point is like yours: Reform is but a part of wider Progressive. Period. It is certainly used as an interchangeable title, at least within North American Reform and British Liberal. As for Mendelsohn, I am NOT pushing for his inclusion within Reform or reformers, but merely arguing for his inclusion as a Progressive Jewish Thinker. However, Zunz is certainly a reformer. I must geh shluf. Have a nice Sunday. A Sniper 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion was moved from the talk page of User:egfrank Egfrank 16:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Zunz was influential on reform and the creation of the science of Judaism 1819 -1845 but after the reform conferences 1844-1846 he wrote anti-reform articles and defenses of rituals to contradict Reform. He is claimed more by positive Historical Judaism. His biography of Rashi, defense of tefillin, and his studies on Kinot became part of Orthodoxy. He rejected Holdheim, Geiger after the conferences and the Hegelian progressive approach of the Berlin Hochshule.--Jayrav 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jayrav - I'm not sure what you mean by "contradict Reform" - in the period you are discussing there were many different ideas about how Jewish education, liturgy, communal life, personal religious life, etc could be improved. Also many different ideas about how much of the surrounding intellectual culture could be used to improve Judaism - however, there was no "religious denomination" or CCAR in Germany to which a rabbi could or could not belong. The rabbinic reformers of that period were rabbis in official synagogues and sometimes even the official chief rabbi of the town. Most were very much against any kind of organization split among the Jews in their region.
The sharing of intellectual achievements among reformers and orthodox is not uncommon. Marcus Jastrow (whose dictionary is on practically every yeshiva desk) was also one of the "reformers" and the rabbi of a prominent synagogue that belonged to the UAHC, to boot. Egfrank 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank, I agree with you. But he went out of his way not to identify with many of the statements and positions of the conferences 1844-1846, and he has statements that differ with some of the given attitudes at the hochschule. All I am saying is that we should not make a one-to one relationship of Zunz with Reform, that positive-historical seems to have the primary claim on him, he was friendly with Hokhmat Yisrael types in Italy and Galicia, and that everyone of his formative friends from 1819 converted out. He is not a clear case of what was later called Reform and Progressive. If the wikipedia project Progressive Judaism expands its scope and definition to include the many enlightenment trends in many counties then, and only then, if Zunz certainly included.--Jayrav 18:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a claim of a one-to-one relationship between Zunz and Reform?
Scope. At present the scope pretty much includes anything that belongs to modern day progressive Judaism or was essential to its formation. That would include the historical-critical school. I would imagine that would continue, at least until someone wants to set up a project or task force dedicated to the historical-critical school. Until then we need to be concerned with these articles because it is pretty hard to write a good article on the modern movement without good articles to link to for the thought that has influenced it. Egfrank 08:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article vs Category: Capturing the intellectual influences on Progressive Judaism

Hi Eg (may I call you that, for example?). Just noticed your Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers. If you don't mind my saying so, that list may be admirable but it would tend to be a matter of personal opinion, right? If so, how would you feel about deleting it? Be well. Pls reply to my Talk. L'hit, HG | Talk 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussing the usefulness of this category.
Some background. The category isn't exactly my invention. It arose while I was trying to do some cleanup on a rather heterogeneous set of items that had been assigned to Category:Reform Judaism - a mix of summer camps, rabbis, concepts, people, etc. When the members of a category are too much of a mixed bag the category is not particularly useful - the human mind needs a certain amount of homogeneity to effectively scan down a list.
I certainly didn't feel I had the right to nix the Reform Judaism category (nor even change its name alas - it includes topics of interest to all progressive Jews across the world but is named in a manner that is biased towards the American branch of progressive Judaism.) Nor, in most cases, did I have the time to research the validity of the existing associations between each article and progressive Judaism. My conservative solution was to break the items into mentally homogeneous groupings while still preserving the connection to Category:Reform Judaism. Hence thinker+reform turned into Category:Progressive Jewish thinkers.
As for the category being "personal opinion". No, I don't think so. If the thinker influenced the development of progressive Jewish thought then it is arguably a progressive Jewish thinker. We can find reliable sources for asserting X influenced progressive Judaism.
There are, BTW, many thinkers that have influenced research, dialog, and rhetoric in all streams of Judaism from Orthodoxy to the most tradition denying universalistic segments of Progressive Judaism. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Joseph B Soleveitchik, Leopold Zunz among them. By extension of the definition of "Progressive thinker" offered above, these would also be members of Category:Orthodox Jewish thinkers and Category:Conservative Jewish thinkers.
My question in return would be: how do we capture the thought that has influenced each movement? On one hand I think it is very important that we get away from the idea that any movement "owns" some part of Jewish thought and tradition. On the other hand, each movement focuses on a different (albeit overlapping) group of thinkers. This too is notable and needs to be documented.
Kol tuv, Egfrank 07:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thorough response. Categories need clear definitions and criteria. Unfortunately, "influence" on a movement strikes me as far too vague (and maybe OR). It'd include Plato, Kant, and the rest of classical philosophy and liberal thought. Maybe you could have an article on "Theology (or Philosophy) of Progressive Judaism" and flesh out formative influences there, or through articles on individual thinkers. ("Progressive" is somewhat an unfortunate term for encyclopedia purposes, since "Progressive Jewish" doesn't sound like it refers merely to Progressive Judaism). thanks. HG | Talk 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) response copied from User_talk:HG Egfrank 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you have identified two issues for discussion: (a) can we define the category in a way that does not define the whole world? (b) is an article or a category more useful to this purpose?
Bounding the category. I don't see why it can't be done. Authors who write on the history of progressive Judaism do it all the time. We can look at a number of historians and decide on a mutually agreeable definition in light of those historians
Article vs Category. Articles and categories serve a different purpose. An article provides a much more nuanced way to explore the development of progressive thought. A category provides a quick checklist. They compliment each other but they do not replace each other. Suppose I want to learn more about the history of progressive thought. One way to do this is to build a checklist of must read articles. The human eye can quickly scan a category listing to build such a list. To build a list from an article, the user would have to laboriously copy each link into list, essentially recreating the category.
Name. I'm wondering whether you are actually objecting to the category or to the name? For example, I would be more than willing to rename the category, "Intellectual influences on Progressive Judaism".
Shavuah Tov, Egfrank 06:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent clarifying questions. Let me say up front, that I'm not out to undermine your efforts. I just want to make suggestions that will allow you to be productive and constructive, and run into as little opposition or disputes as possible. I predict you/we will find it quite difficult and contentious to delimit or define a category for what you want. (Actually, you seem to be asking for a list. Regardless, for the list/category to work, you'd have to edit Moses Mendelssohn and other bios to state clearly that each is an influence on Progressive Judaism. But if you start adding such statements to Maimonides, Spinoza, Rashi, Kant, etc., you'll seem disruptive and POV-pushing. Kant's bio is not about to include every movement he influenced, right?) Instead, I really think you should start with a section of Progressive Judaism with a heading, as you suggest, like "Intellectual influences on Progressive Judaism." In that section, you can verify claims, and calmly discuss with folks, who should be included and why. (E.g., If Solomon Freehof was influenced by Hatam Sofer, do you include the latter?) You might even end up with a list inside the article. As appropriate, other Progressive Judaism articles can link or See Also that list. Does this make sense? Thanks. HG | Talk 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The question of list vs. category is a philosophical debate within wikipedia. Given my professional background in software engineering, I tend to be biased away from lists and toward categories. They are easier to maintain using both manual and automated methods. I generally only welcome lists when there is clear need to annotate each member - something that can't be effectively done within a category.
As far as providing citations and documentation for the membership in a category, there are two ways to go about this. The first is, as you suggest, placing arguments within each article. The second is to associated the category with a main article that describes the nature of each category members influence, accompanied by appropriate citations and discussions of disputes. My own preference is for the latter solution
  • it permits a more effective discussion of the nuances and the general flow than would annotations on each separate biography
  • it avoids certain problems of WP:UNDUE - notability is not always reciprocal. Spinoza may be relevant to the history of progressive judaism and there is plenty of material available discussing the pros and cons of that claim. On the other hand the reverse is not true. I don't know that the indirect and disputed impact of Spinoza 21st century progressive judaism rates space within an article that needs to stay roughly within 31K.
BTW, although I am probably the most vocal editor on talk pages a lot of work is being done quietly by other editors, in particular User:A Sniper. I have already been credited (mistakenly) at least once with his work. Many of the recent additions of bios to Category:Reform Judaism are his edits, not mine. This was another reason why I have moved discussions on my user page to the this project page. He has a right to participate in discussions that concern his edits. I expect him to be looking at this page given that (a) he founded the project and (b) has a special interest in the bios of figures who have influenced progressive Judaism. I don't think any decision should be made without his participation. Egfrank 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Well, you gave two good reasons -- against annotating the article on each thinker of influence. I defer to others on lists > categories. However, I don't think you've responded to my main point, which I believe is a friendly suggestion, even if I'm sounding a bit impatient (I'm sorry! Really!), and should help you all develop what you want without riling feathers. Why not a section of the Progressive Judaism article on influential thinkers?
BTW it's good & ethical of you to give A Sniper due credit. But I've noticed in Wikipedia, besides nobody owning their work, it's quite difficult to expect people to respond during discussions. The process won't move so quickly that A Sniper won't have time to respond and, even if we can make some good quick decisions, WP histories allow us to undo if A Sniper makes some brilliants points we missed. Anyway, if you start the article section, that doesn't delete the category, so why not go ahead? Thanks, and be well. HG | Talk 12:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than delighted to begin the article section. It was my intention all along to write something like that. If you look at the Progressive Judaism article, you will notice that the claim is made that the position of the movement changes over time. I think you will agree it is rather wishy washy to make a claim (even with citation) that the ideas of a movement are in flux when you don't actually describe the history of that flux.

As you may have noted, this is a complex topic and there is already a lot of not terribly well thought out material on this topic. I don't think we need any more opinion pieces. This is a complex topic and I've been taking my time so I can do some background reading. My normal field of interest is more along the lines of linguistics, bible and hermaneutics, not the history of Jewish thought. Egfrank 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. At first I thought you meant I was wishy washy, and I felt a bit insulted. :-( Even without more reading or expertise, I think you can pull something together quickly and nicely using summary style, drawing upon intellectual history (oops, I assume it's there) from articles on the pre-cursors, the Germans, the American Reform, British, etc. Plus, if you start off that way, you'll be able to tag (or bookmark) weaknesses in the related underlying articles. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, No, I meant *I* was wishy washy (I'm the one who wrote the sentence and still hadn't filled in the details). Glad though that you figured I meant me and not you. Kol tuv, Egfrank 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Progressive Judaism OR?

Moved discussion initiated by User:IZAK Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels for greater Judaic editors' involvement. This project is still too new and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism do not know that it exists. Thank you, IZAK 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To Egfrank: I have re-moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels where more editors can chime in on this key discussion. Your project is too new, limiting and limited at this time. I was actually hoping to get a more focused discussion going between the two of us, but once you threw it out of your talk page, it belongs in a place where more Judaic editors can see it, not less. See also my comments here: I fully agree with User:Shirahadasha; User:Jon513 and User:JFW that splitting up Judaism projects based on the Jewish denominations has bever worked over the long run on Wikipedia . Thanks a lot, IZAK 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To IZAK - You are within your rights to copy the discussion or request that it be moved. To simply delete it and make a unilateral decision that this discussion should be deleted from a talk page is hard for me to comprehend. Can you please explain the wiki policy that gives you this right? Egfrank 07:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Egfrank: It was I that initiated this discussion on your talk page [1] 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)

I do not at all have a problem with moving the discussion or encouraging wider participation. I was in the process of adding a notice about the on-going discussions to the wiki project judaism page when I discovered that you had jumped the gun and moved at least one of these discussions.
I have a problem with your deleting the material rather than simply copying material with a final coda requesting that the discussion be moved to Wikipedia:Judaism project. Please note that when I changed the venue, I only deleted material on my user page.
As for this being my personal project: (a) neither you nor I know who is watching this project (b) User:A Sniper is hardly marginal - he created the actual project (against my initial objections BTW).
As for wanting to talk one on one. I am not "progressive judaism" - there is a 1.7 million member movement out there with a significant academic community around it. As a general rule, I do not like to carry out discussion of substance about articles on my personal pages. I considered moving the discussion to one of the article pages, but since it covered multiple articles, that did not make sense. Also it was related in some ways with an on going discussion about how to characterize certain reformers of the 18th and 19th century (see #Abraham Geiger and Leopold Zunz) above.
Kol tuv, Egfrank 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, can you please say all this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism so that we are not jumping back and forth between the two projects and talk pages. Don't you see that it's just so confusing and messes things up. We are spending far too much time haggling over where to hold the talks and we're not getting down to brass tacks. Thanks again. I will not be responding to you here again. If you cannot bring yourself to join the main WP:JUDAISM project for discussions with the other Judaic editors then I will simply nominate duplicate articles and categories for deletion, which I am reluctant to do and which is why I tried to engage you in conversation on your talk page first, and of course, no-one expects to talk to or for the 1.5 million Progressives or the Billions of Torah Jews that have lived throughout all the millenia of Jewish history. Thanks for your understanding, IZAK 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is starting to wear me out and it's creating unnecessary ill will. I can imagine that IZAK may have come on too strong or too-opinionated, but really (and read the other comments on the Prog Project spin-off) I see no antagonism to you contributing and inspiring others to contribute on Progressive Judaism & Kin. Instead, what's actually going on is this: Izak is probably the most active guy behind the Judaism project, he's seen alot of stuff bloom and fade, he has a seasoned sense of what's distracting and what's suitable. (Not to say I don't sometimes disagree w/his AfD views.) He's actually welcoming you into the Judaism project, inviting you to bring your questions and big meta editorial decisions to "his" forum, our forum. You may not realize it, but this Project here may be self-sabotaging because you'll need/want to be where more of the action is, i.e. WP:Judaism. An isolated project with less than 20 active editors isn't worth the trouble. (Sounds like our recent Torah reading: what if a project has 50 active, 20 active, 10 active...) Most of the topics on this page can either be held more fruitfully on article Talk pages or WP:Judaism. Or just create the Israel page, boldly. I'm repeating myself, if only because we've got duplicate Project discussion threads, that you and A Sniper et alia should be bold in creating articles, but collaborative and patient with the meta pages. B'hatzlakhah and good luck, HG | Talk 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
HG - the issue of where to have this discussion was resolved hours ago. As for the project's legitimacy - only time will tell. I would be very happy to recommend shutting it down if there was an active body of knowlegable editors working on these topics who said they would rather deal with it on the main project. Egfrank 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Drat, I am, like, always like hours behind the latest trend. Don't think of it as shutting it down, but rather like a friendly buy-out (isn't that a techie entrepreneur's dream?). HG | Talk 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be sad if everyone boogied over to the main Judaism project because there are distinct and important reasons why this needs to exist here, hence the reason I wanted to start it (with Egfrank) in the first place. The problem seems to be confusion or displeasure with the term Progressive being used, as opposed to reform. I've mentioned in various places that my original idea was to use reform but Egfrank's point that progressive had a far-reaching arm made sense to me. I would rather talk, discuss & collaborate about the history, background, beliefs, movers & shakers, etc. of the last 200 years within (& related to) everything Progressive;y Jewish HERE than debate and argue at the main project, perhaps with nice-intentioned folk who don't even really recognize any of this as actually being Jewish or a stream of Judaism. That is why this needs to exist, and why it shall. Best, A Sniper 11:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. My concern has nothing to do with the title. This might sound a bit odd, but what you've just said -- well, you've articulated the reason why this shouldn't be a project. I'm really not trying to be confrontational. But look, first of all, we don't want groups of editors setting up discussions so they can be by themselves, without having to deal with those who disagree. (E.g., see WP:FORK.) Second, though this may not be what you mean, it sounds like you want a space to discuss the topic. Instead, Wikipedia meta pages are to discuss editing. As you notice on the Judaism page, they're not discussing Judaism, only how to edit (in broad sense, i.e. incl delete articles, meta pages) Judaism-related articles. I'm sorry if you've gotten negative talkback at the main project, but trying to remove yourselves from the fray will backfire. Finally, it doesn't sound collaborative or Wikipedian to talk as if you're insisting on some right to this Project, e.g. "and why it shall." Take care, HG | Talk 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a project for those specifically interested in Progressive Judaism, and furthering the visibility of encyclopedic information on the subject throughout many pages on Wikipedia. That does not make it isolationist or a reaction to anything else. It was originally set up no differently than the project on the Orthodox (of which you yourself are a participant). Those who disagree with edits are welcome to be a part of the project, hence Egfrank's invitation at the main Judaism project. I certainly intend on editing mainstream pages on Judaism and Jews - this particular project serves a purpose like any other. I certainly wouldn't try to speak for all Wikipedians as to what constitutes Wikipedian talk. Why would it backfire? That appears fatalistic and negative, if not ominous. Best, A Sniper 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My view: I know I said I wouldn't comment here, but I do wish to clarify something because it touches on all discussions. I disagree with too much pressure being put on anyone who wishes to have their talks here. That is their right. This is as legitimate a WikiProject as any that exists. Everyone has stated their preferences by now and their reasons for it. BUT, and this is the big BUT, it cannot be expected of those users who do not wish to split their focus to jump between this Wikiproject and the larger WP:JUDAISM project every time the subject of Progressive Judaism or Reform Judaism or Liberal Judaism or some such related subject comes up, and neither can anyone be forced to hold discussions about any topics related to them only here. No such demands can be made. It is up to those editors (so far it's only two users) who wish to have their space here to make sure that they do not create splits and WP:POVFORKS in discussions that will be self-defeating. I had the personal experience that brought about misunderstandings when I placed a comment on the User talk page of a user who was connected with this WikiProject, and without being consulted my comments were cut and pasted to this WikiProject when I had no desire or wish to have the discussions held here. So that then I removed the discussions from here, creating a link and pasted the discussions to the larger WP:JUDAISM (note how I am avoiding using the word "main" not wanting to make a judgment or hurt anyone's feelings of self-esteem.) So please, while anyone is welcome to be wherever they want to be on Wikipedia, the importance of WP:JUDAISM should never be forgotten simply because that is where most of the active Judaic editors are active and contribute their views. Thank you very much for allowing me this guest appearance! IZAK 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'll sign up as a visitor, though I'd prefer that such subprojects not be set up. HG | Talk 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review of coverage

I'm going to start work on a review of articles relating to progressive judaism to identify needs and issues. For anyone who would like to participate, the review can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidating coverage of UK progressive Judaism

The coverage of UK progressive Judaism is currently split among three articles:

I would like to propose that we merge the coverage into a single article titled Progressive Judaism (UK) or Progressive Judaism in the UK. The reasons for merger include:

  • the need to deal with the history of the two movements in tandem. There are some interesting disputes about the relationship between UK progressive Judaism and the history of progressive Judaism in the US and Germany. These cannot be effectively discussed without a common article.
  • the risk of duplicating information explaining the relationship between these two movements. If Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism are described in separate articles without a common main article, then the description of the relationship must be described twice
  • the need to turn Liberal Judaism into a disambiguation page. I can find at least five distinct topics, all of which, are called Liberal Judaism:
    1. the book Liberal Judaism by Eugene Borowitz, describing primarily the US Reform movement
    2. the current official organizational name of the UK liberal movement
    3. the historical UK liberal movement - ideologically on the left of progressive Judaism and existing under a variety of names, most of which were not merely "Liberal Judaism"
    4. the German Liberal movement - ideologically on the right of Progressive Judaism
    5. the Dutch Liberal movement - see Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland
  • the confusion caused by attempting to discuss UK Reform and US Reform in the same article. The US and UK Reform movement bear the same name, have common roots in the Haskalah and are both happy to call themselves progressive and develop common study programs with the US Reform movement. However, they have significant differences in history, philosophy and current policy. The common material can be easily handled in the Progressive Judaism article. The distinctive material for both the US and UK movements is substantial and each country deserves separate treatment. In trying to treat both movements in a single article we end up doing justice to neither. Some examples of differences that need to be developed (and have been largely ignored):
    • internal ideological splits. In the USA the split between left and right wing progressives lead to a denominational split into the Reform and Conservative movements. In the UK, both sides of the split maintained an identification with the worldwide progressive movement. In the US, the right wing of the split not only distanced itself from the local left wing but also the world wide progressive movement. The US Conservative movement is not a member of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, whilst the UK right wing (Reform) is a member.
    • policy: the US Reform and UK Reform have historically disagreed on a number of issues of communal policy: patrilineal descent, the role of woman, intermarriage, the status of homosexuals, the role of tradition and others.
    • liturgy and music - US Reform and UK Reform have distinct prayer books and distinct liturgical music traditions
    • social context - one hallmark of progressive Judaism is its active desire to interact with its surrounding non-Jewish social and intellectual context. It hardly needs to be said that the US and UK are not the same country. The US has separation of church and state. The UK does not. The US, particularly in the 1800's had a forward looking culture that was very open to innovative social ideas and resistant to the notion of inherited class. The UK, continues to deal with the tensions between status acquired by money and achievement vs. status acquired by class. A significant body of literature discussing the social context exists and can be reported upon.

I would like to propose a week to discuss this merger, after which we will write up a consensus and make relevant changes. If I see no response, I will assume at that point that there is a consensus in favor of the merger. Egfrank 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a Liberal Judaism (UK) continue as a self-standing article, at least for the time being (for reasons I have extensively set out in the past). I have no objection, though, to a new umbrella article Progressive Judaism in the UK being created. Once that new article is complete would be the time to review the situation again. But I would think even with a new article looking at the overview, Liberal Judaism (UK) should still be taken forward, and go into more detail about the specific history, development and self-identity of the Liberal Judaism movement in the UK. Jheald 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather like that idea. I think there should be ample material for a sub-article focusing on the internal development of UK liberal Judaism. How do you propose we work it so that we avoid a fork. When there is a main article and a sub-article, the summary in the main article needs to be periodically checked to make sure it captures the highlights of the ever growing sub-article. And new information that accidentally ends up in the main article needs to be moved into the sub-article. How is this done on other articles you've worked on? (BTW I'm involved in another article with lots of sub-articles so I'm particularly interested in learning what you have found did and didn't work.)

Another question: how would you suggest we deal with the movement vs. organization question vis a vis UK Reform? The UK reform movement is currently divided into two (a) subsection on Reform Judaism and (b) a very brief article about the current organization. Do you think movement and organization should be blended in one article (as is currently done for UK liberal judaism) or do you think separate articles should be maintained? I rather like the idea of following your suggestion for sub-article Liberal Judaism (UK) and also applying it to UK Reform. What do you think? Egfrank 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would simply write the new article, including whatever you think is appropriate to make a balanced summary there, using {{main}} to put down a pointer to the other articles, but (at least to start with) basically leave them to fend for themselves. It becomes clearer (sometimes) to see where things should go once some text is in place. And this is Wikipedia -- articles will get knocked about willy-nilly, whatever any of us originally intend.
As for UK Reform, I think it makes 100% good sense to treat both the movement and its organisational structures in the one article. Whether that ends up titled Reform Judaism (UK) or Movement for Reform Judaism is a matter of taste -- the former has the advantage that it flags up, right in the headline, that it is going to be an article about the UK. The latter has the significance that it is what movement is actually calling itself. On balance, once more review material is added, I think I'd go for the former. Jheald 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite easy to start a new page and I'd like to meld Jheald's ideas into Movement for Reform Judaism (UK), especially since the Liberals in the UK already have a page. The British reform have a distinct history from that of the Germans, hence shouldn't be on the reform Judaism page if they currently are. That said, they rightly belong on a more general page on Progressive Judaism that covers (like a blanket) all of the denominations and strands following a non-traditionalist approach. Best, A Sniper 11:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Splitting off Israeli Progressive Judaism into its own article

I would like to propose splitting off the topic of Israeli Progressive Judaism into its own article titled either Progressive Judaism (Israel) or Progressive Judaism in Israel. The reasons for the split:

The Reform Judaism article is quite long. This is a complex topic that deserves an article of its own. Topics that should be covered by a fully developed article include:

  1. the development of Progressive Judaism in Israel
  2. the current political environment vis a vis other movements in Israel
  3. its social action initiatives (IRAC, Rabbi for Human Rights)
  4. the financial and organizational relationships with Jews outside of israel
  5. its spiritual significance to progressive Jews outside of israel
  6. any other suggestions for this outline more than welcome!

Given that the progressive movement in israel wants to be known as the progressive movement and not the reform movement, it is inappropriate to develop a full description of the Isreali progressive movement in an article titled Reform Judaism. At most, Reform Judaism] should include a mention that many Jews (progressive and traditional) outside of Israel and many non-progressives within Israel insist on calling the Israeli progressive movement "reform". This should be accompanied by a link to the main article Progressive Judaism in Israel.

I will wait a week before making any changes. At the end of that point we can assess the consensus and make necessary changes. If there is no response to this topic I will assume no objection and go forward with the proposed changes. Kol tuv lcholam, Egfrank 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. How does this suggestion "interface" (ugh my vocab) with the existing Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism? I would imagine that this existing stub could be expanded into a spinoff from the main Reform (and/or Progressive) articles. But the motivation here shouldn't be about the name "Reform" or "Progressive" (though it is important to you) but rather editorial choices about how much goes into a main article and how much into a spinoff. (BTW is RHR denominational?) If the stub is ok, please don't wait a week, just build it up along with your excellent five subtopics. HG | Talk 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see both UK Reform and Israeli Progressives on their own page, as opposed to the current Reform Judaism page. It makes perfect sense, as the focus can be on the German classical reformers and resulting developments in North America. A Sniper 11:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
HG, Good question - very similar to the one I asked above re: UK Reform vs. the organization. Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to combine the information into a single article though see User:Jheald's response though about the name. Egfrank 17:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The IMPJ is only a part of the history of the progressive movement in Israel. Israeli progressive Judaism began in the 1930's with some German Liberal rabbis. The fledgling movement petered out at that point with one exception - the Leo Baeck school in Haifa (still existing). The movement restarted in the 1970's this time with US help, and MAROM (the rabbinic association) and IMPJ were formed during that later period.
RHR denominational? It is an association of Reform and Conservative (Masorti) rabbis. I assume any rabbi could join, but I don't know of any orthodox members. Hope that helps, Egfrank 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pittsburg Platform

The article Pittsburg Platform only describes the 19th century platform. Shouldn't this be updated to describe the 1999 platform as well. The US Reform movement now has 2 Pittsburg platforms, not one, and they are quite different. Egfrank, 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a lot that's worth saying about the 1999 platform, it might be best to create a new article, Pittsburgh Platform (1999), with {{For}} hatnotes at the top to dab between the two. But if it's just to note that it exists, that could be noted in a couple of lines at the end. Jheald 09:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a great idea (the {{For}}) - probably does need a new article. It was a major shift away from classical reform judaism and generated (and still does) a lot of discussion. The whole darn think is currently included in Reform Judaism (something should probably be done about that). Egfrank 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Pittsburgh Platform (1999) now created. At the moment it contains the whole text of the platform, which was formerly at Reform Judaism. I have copyvio fears. It could use analysis instead. Jheald 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

I am a bit confused by what is currently happening with the pages. I'm sure your plans are similar to mine. In my opinion:

  • a) Reform Judaism should remain a single page covering the history of the German classical reformers;
German classical reform deserves a page of its own, whatever it ends up named. Hence German Reform movement (Judaism). If it should be moved/renamed later, that's fine. But getting it onto the wiki in its own right, under whatever name, gives the article an identity, and allows it to be worked on. Jheald 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • b) Reform Judaism (United States) should be changed to Reform Judaism (North America);
Fair point, go ahead if that's more appropriate. Jheald 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • c) The Movement for Reform Judaism (UK) should have its own page, as it is quite separate from the above;
Reform Judaism (United Kingdom) now exists. There may be a case for a separate little article on the organisation, rather than the movement, so I didn't merge the two for the time being. Jheald 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • d) all other branches within Progressive should have separate pages.

Best, A Sniper 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've all (Egfrank, JHeald, ASniper) agreed. User:HG is having a great deal of difficulty with this. I'm not sure why. I've gone and seconded his request for help - see [[2]] Egfrank 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about Reform Judaism (Germany) sections on belief

I'm trying to split up material in Reform Judaism (Germany) into the correct articles. It is currently a mismash of just about everything except the modern German progressive movement. Some of the things I've considered (none of which I like):

  • move to German Reform movement (Judaism) - problem here is that
    • it doesn't distinguish between proposed and accepted reforms
    • mixes up information about the german reform period with later traditions in an ahistorical fashion
    • nothing is cited
  • keep in Reform Judaism (Germany) (or whatever the article on the modern movement should be named) - problem is:
    • nothing here is about modern germany - the modern stuff is all USA only
  • delete it all as per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH - problem is:
    • there's a few snippets of good writing we may want to keep
    • the facts mentioned need to be researched and placed in their proper context - I don't think it is fair to omit the material if it can be salvaged.

Any suggestions? Egfrank 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC) PS I've cross posted this on the article itself - I would prefer to have the discussion there... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Judaism core beliefs - should they be in the Progressive Judaism article

Please see Jewish_beliefs_and_practices_in_the_reform_movement - User:HG thinks this is a good idea and last night made a unilateral move (without prior discussion on this page or any other) to move around sections and create what I feel is a hodge podge of history and present, common core and regional specific information that either belongs in German Reform movement (Judaism) or in Reform Judaism (North America) (because it actually defines the USA) or in Progressive Judaism (which has now been robbed of any real belief section).

I don't intend to get involved in an edit war, but there is no way I can edit that mess over there. Someone else needs to get involved....I can't work this way. See talk page for comments. Egfrank 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)