Revision as of 00:59, 22 June 2004 editSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 edits →Why is a Criticism section necessary or appropriate?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:21, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,050,021 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
Older discussions may be found here: |
|
|
|
{{Notice|{{Find sources}}}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1= GAN |
|
|
|action1date= 2006-03-13 |
|
|
|action1link= |
|
|
|action1result= listed |
|
|
|action1oldid= 43662076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2= FAC |
|
]<br> |
|
|
|
|action2date= 2006-04-22 |
|
]<br> |
|
|
|
|action2link= Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Judaism/archive1 |
|
]<br> |
|
|
|
|action2result= failed |
|
]<br> |
|
|
|
|action2oldid= 49558969 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3= GAR |
|
===Beit Din=== |
|
|
|
|action3date= 2007-07-11 |
|
This comment is moved here from ] |
|
|
|
|action3result= delisted |
|
|
|action3oldid= 143893436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = GAR |
|
How about a section detailing the Beit Din system. Also at least a little section listing the different sects, within ], Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. like for example ], ], Humanistic etc. And since some of these sects are considered apostate by the orthodox, why not also mention the apostate Messianics too? (Before anyone else accuses me of being Messianic, I do NOT believe in any kind of Chstian displacement theology nor do I acknowledge the legitimacy of their so-called divinity G-zus. I am however in favour of absolute neutrality in reportage). Also a little section discussing the steps towards conversion as ], ], (]), ], and the ]. ] 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action4date = 2021-08-15 |
|
|
| action4link = /GA1 |
|
|
| action4result = failed |
|
|
| action4oldid = 1037334715 |
|
|
| topic = philrelig |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
|collapse = no |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Kabbalah|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|
|counter = 23 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Judaism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Judaism/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Judaism/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== First representative == |
|
] 11:43, 1 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people." |
|
I just discovered a wiki entry about ] too. It is the first I have ever heard of them! This entry surely is the place to inform the casual reader about which forms of Judaism are considered Jewish and which are considered apostate. ] 08:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
And of many others, see Arabs. So why not Jacob/Israel? Or Moses, the first to receive the Law. This (Abraham = the first, or progenitor) isn't the only interpretation. ] (]) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
=== Criticism === |
|
|
* The "anti-Jewish" critics of past and of current "Jewish/Zionist" ] ] |
|
|
* - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org |
|
|
* ''Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism'' David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993 |
|
|
* |
|
|
*http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years] |
|
|
'''Editorial Reviews |
|
|
From Booklist: |
|
|
Israel Shahak, who came to Israel in 1945 after surviving the concentration camp in Belsen during the Holocaust, contends that the potential for Israel's right-wing Jewish religious movements to seize power represents a threat to the peace of Israel and to the Zionist movement. |
|
|
He posits that Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other people and states in the Middle East. |
|
|
Shahak, who was raised as an Orthodox Jew, condemns what he sees as discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel. The real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism, which must include the critique of the Jewish past. |
|
|
Most disturbing, Shahak insists that the religion, in its classical and talmudic form, is "poisoning minds and hearts." |
|
|
|
|
|
This controversial attack of Israel by a Jew is bound to alarm Jewry worldwide. George Cohen --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVISED CRITICAL LINKS: |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
* |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html Judaism and Jewish Apologetics] - Critical analysis of the moral aspects of parts of Judaism; from Infidels.Org |
|
|
* ''Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism'' David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993 |
|
|
*http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/102-2015385-6701711?v=glance Jewish History Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Bronze/Iron age parking place== |
|
|
Edit (move wikitext from ''Judaism'' to 'Ya...' was rvtd, so parking wikitext here for now: this is not a deletion; someone composed the wording! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Yahwish, from which Judaism derived, began to be a widely-practiced religion first in the northern ] during the time of the Omrides (c. 884-835 BCE);<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Frevel |first=Christian |date=2021 |title=When and from Where did YHWH Emerge? Some Reflections on Early Yahwism in Israel and Judah |url=https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/8776 |journal=Entangled Religions |volume=12 |issue=2 |doi=10.46586/er.12.2021.8776 |via=RUB |hdl=2263/84039 |hdl-access=free |access-date=7 June 2024 |archive-date=25 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240125195255/https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/8776 |url-status=live }}</ref> Judaism evolved out of it likely around the 6th/5th century BCE<ref name="MINDELL2009">{{cite book|author=David P Mindell|title=The Evolving World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s8kA6eaz7hsC&pg=PA224 |year= 2009 |publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-04108-0|page=224}}</ref> with its characteristic practices and prohibitions widely practiced first in the second century BCE.<ref>{{cite book |surname=Adler |given=Yonatan |title=The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal |place=New Haven, Conn |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2022 |isbn=978-0-300-25490-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k8KREAAAQBAJ |access-date=16 July 2023 |archive-date=21 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230521074421/https://books.google.com/books?id=k8KREAAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref> ] (]) 00:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I've been asked by u:Incadescent Bliss to take a look at the latest changes to the article. To be honest, I have problems with both the and the . |
|
|
:The status quo lede uses the overview by BBC which is not a scholarly source and a century-old article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. We can certainly do better. |
|
|
:The proposed version also has problems. The second sentence of it uses Frevel's article to make a very strong statement about the origins of Judaism. Does this article represent the scholarly consensus? The third sentence uses ''The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life'', which is not a scholarly study of Judaism. |
|
|
:Per ], the lede should summarise the article. Therefore I would suggest to focus on improving the History section of the article first, and once we're happy with it we'll know what to write in the lede. {{ping|Sinclairian}}, {{ping|IncandescentBliss}}, {{ping|Nuts240}}. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've made some amendments to this end. ] (]) 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::In the Yahwism article, the only counter-argument to Frevel’s 2021 article is a 2011 book from a religious publishing house (source for last sentence in quote below). As far as I know, in 2020s academic literature, Frevel’s view has not been challenged. He explains the origins of Yahweh-worship with countless citations in his SBL Press 2023 textbook (the current “industry standard” textbook in ancient Israel history). There is one possible Yahweh toponym that traces much earlier, there’s not even a hint of it being widespread until the 9th century BCE. |
|
|
::From Yahwism article (an updated version of this should probably be added to the history section of this article) |
|
|
::”…while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE, there is no attestation of even the name "Yahweh" in the Levant until some four hundred years later with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE). Christian Frevel argues that Yahweh worship was rooted in the Kingdom of Israel and preserved by the Omride clan. Nevertheless, many scholars believe that the shared worship of Yahweh played a role in the emergence of Israel in the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE).” ] (]) 18:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::To be clear, I think the current version is a vast improvement over where we started, I think think: |
|
|
::1. “of the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age” is not aligned with recent scholarship. It probably *started* in the early Bronze Age and continued for quite a while after (Adler’s book I cite implies it continued essentially until the Hasmoneans) |
|
|
::2. Moore and Mindell should not be used as sources when there are better and more recent ones that say roughly the same thing about Judaism beginning around the time of the exile ] (]) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the explanation, I think the current version of the lede is alright. |
|
|
:::Where is this development described in in Frevel's History of Ancient Israel? ]<sub>]</sub> 20:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not sure how much weight the article should give to Adler's book. I've been searching for some reviews and I've found at least two which are critical to many of the central thesis advocated in the book. questions Adler's reliance on arguments from silence in his review </nowiki>], while also argues that there is some positive evidence that Jews from pre-Hasmonean times observed precepts from the Torah </nowiki>]. |
|
|
:::Given the fact that Adler's book was written as a challenge to the scholarly consensus and that not all scholars appear to have endorsed his thesis, I do not think the book's thesis should be cited in the lede as if it was factually true, at least not without noting other scholarly opinions. ] (]) 21:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This quote from the Simkovich review really serves to show Adler’s point: |
|
|
::::“Suppose he had opened his study with an examination of early Second Temple sources and then looked at the development of both ideas and practices as he moved toward the first century CE. Had Adler opened his study by examining evidence from the Second Temple period, he still would not have found compelling evidence for circumcision, kashrut, and Shabbat. But perhaps he would have taken pause to address the many literary references to the Jerusalem Temple, charity, and prayer. He would have had to contend with texts that affirm God’s commitment to the people of Israel. He would have found references to covenant, monotheism, revelation, and the messianic age. Above all, he would have found texts that allude to and interpret scriptural traditions. All of these themes are featured in Judean literature of the Persian era, Jewish literature of the Hellenistic era, and later rabbinic literature.” |
|
|
::::Almost all we have is texts. There’s no evidence that these were *widespread* practices. Adler’s is not at all saying these practices didn’t exist in the the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. He’s arguing that the best roadmap to understanding when Torah was widely observed is archaeology. |
|
|
::::See Mary Leith for details and not speculation about what was happening in Persian Period Yehud: |
|
|
::::https://www.academia.edu/44472311/New_Perspectives_on_the_Return_from_Exile_and_Per_sian_Period_Yehud ] (]) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I already read Mary Leith's paper some time ago. It is indeed very interesting, but it does not offer support to Adler's view. In the paper, Leith writes: |
|
|
:::::"In the Persian period, even as daily sacrifice to Yhwh resumed on the altar of the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple, Yahwism began the long shift to a new religious orientation based on authoritative writings and controlled by expert interpreters (Knoppers and Levinson 2007; van der Toorn 2007; Schmidt 2012; Edelman 2014; Stern 2015)." (p. 3) |
|
|
:::::Note also that Adler's reliance on an argument from silence in the archaeological record has been questioned by Gordon: |
|
|
:::::"To read ''The Origins of Judaism'' is to be reminded of the extent to which the cultural record of Judean life in the Second Temple period is marked by preservation bias. Judea in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods was sparsely populated and impoverished—a backwater—its material culture rather nondescript and austere, leaving us little to study. We must rely heavily on the Hebrew Bible, especially the Pentateuch, to get a sense of the society's cultural institutions. The region paled in comparison to the wealthier coastal cities of the time, and especially to what Judea would become in the first centuries BCE and CE. For those centuries, on the other hand, we have a glut of evidence: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Josephus and Philo, the New Testament sources, and an uncommonly rich archaeological record of a society that was experiencing pronounced economic growth. Its cities had never been so prosperous, and its material culture never so distinctive, as Judeans sought new identities in an increasingly cosmopolitan milieu. |
|
|
:::::This preservation bias means that there are perils to Adler's dogged reliance on arguments from silence. The absence of evidence for widespread observance of Torah-based customs before the Hellenistic period, which is to say, from sources outside the Torah itself, as Adler requires, may simply reflect the limitations of our source material." |
|
|
:::::Given that Adler's argument from silence has been put into question, I think that the sentence in the lede of the article that {{tq|its characteristic practices and prohibitions widely practiced first in the second century BCE}} should be removed at least as long as there is not a consensus endorsing this theory. We could perhaps include some discussion of it in the History section or creating a new page about Adler's book, though. ] (]) 23:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::"In the Persian period, even as daily sacrifice to Yhwh resumed on the altar of the rebuilt Jerusalem Temple, Yahwism began the long shift to a new religious orientation based on authoritative writings and controlled by expert interpreters.” |
|
|
::::::I’m fairly certain Adler would agree with this. Elites in Jerusalem with clearly defined practices is not in question here. It’s when did *widespread* observance of the vast majority of Torah because the norm for most people. The shift was gradual and I haven’t seen any arguments that widespread Torah observance was happening before the Hasmoneans. |
|
|
::::::Regarding the review quoted above. There is way more evidence than is typically discussed. For example, I’m not sure anyone can/has looked through the Yehud coinage of the Perisan period and come out thinking that Torah was widely observed in that time period. Torah is quite clearly confined to a fairly elite group who wrote a lot of literature. |
|
|
::::::http://www.ins.org.il/files/files/Yehud_Coinage_Intro.pdf ] (]) 00:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's basically the problem. Adler holds that only elite groups in Jerusalem observed the precepts of the Torah in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods, but Mary Leith nowhere states in her paper anything like that (she does not state that ''only'' elite groups observed the Torah). So, no. Leith's paper does not support Adler's position. |
|
|
:::::::As for the Yehud coinage, the link you provided nowhere states that those coins demonstrate that widespread Torah observance first started in the 2nd century BC. The closest thing to what Adler argues is when they mention a drachm which they say it might represent a consort of Yahweh (among other possibilities), but when I read the chapter in question I noted that the authors conclude that the drachm was struck in Philistia and that the woman in question most likely represents the Phoenician Astarte, while also noting that "It is difficult to make any assumptions about whether this imaginery was acceptable in Judah, or whether the Philistian mint authorities knew or cared about Judahite sensitivities, because the drachm was not certainly intended for circulation in Judah." () |
|
|
:::::::So, again, I do not think that Adler's theory should be stated in ] as factual and in the lede when it has not been demonstrated that said theory represents the mainstream scholarly view on the topic (if anything, it seems to be the opposite case). Whether we could include some discussion of it in the History section is another question. ] (]) 10:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
@], you said earlier that the ''History of Ancient Israel'' by Frevel published in 2023 (and thus supposedly reflects the current scholarly consensus) supports the two claims added to the lede ({{tquote|Yahwism, from which Judaism derived, began to be a widely-practiced religion first in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the time of the Omrides; Judaism evolved out of it likely around the 6th/5th century BCE with its characteristic practices and prohibitions widely practiced first in the second century BCE}}). Can you point to pages on which it is discussed? ]<sub>]</sub> 07:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article. It is appropriate for another article. Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here. If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to yo; if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic. Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context. Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google. So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article. Period. If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
"First, let's put away the red-herring of the Israeli Palestinian conflict." |
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing "red-herring" about this conflict, whatsoever. |
|
|
It is at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish vs Non-Jewish relations. |
|
|
|
|
|
"I am not taking any stand on this position here, nor does the article. It is appropriate for another article." |
|
|
|
|
|
That is only your own pov opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Anyone who brings it up is clouding the issues here." |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, on the contrary, as it is actually at the very heart of the CENTRAL ISSUE of Jewish verses Non-Jewish relations. |
|
|
|
|
|
"If you are doing so and do not understand why it is unproductive I will explain it to you;" |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me hear your explaination to understand as to why it is "unproductive". |
|
|
|
|
|
"if you are deliberately clouding the issues know that you are using an anti-Semitic tactic." |
|
|
|
|
|
No one is actually "clouding" any issues, except for you, in your falsely calling any such valid criticisms as being "Anti-semitism", which it obviously and clearly and factually is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Second, that a website has the highest googles must -- as with all facts -- be taken in context." |
|
|
|
|
|
The context only being that very many people consider it worthy enough and google does rank it according to how many people link to it and reference it. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Anti-Semites link and search certain pages specifically to influence their position in Google." |
|
|
|
|
|
That is only your own pov opinion, as is your pov slander of "Anti-semites". |
|
|
|
|
|
"So, finally, the link in question is anti-semitic and has no place in this article. Period. If you feel wikipedians should have access to it, link it to the page on anti-semitism. ]" |
|
|
|
|
|
You and your ilk falsely labeling any "criticism" of ] as ONLY being "anti-semitic" is what is actually a "red-herring" and is deliberately and falsely and hypocritically being used only to "cloud the issues" and to limit any productive debate and to avoid anyone actually getting to the real root of any such issues and solving these problems and relations. Those that suffer from such ]s should "GO AWAY!" and for the sake of World Peace.-PV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What makes you think that the judaism article is unique in being able to remain w/o criticism? You point about palistinians and such is valid. Your second point is flat out wrong, period. ] ] 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong. One can criticize things that people say, and things that people do, but to criticize a whole people is racist. You also seem to be wilfully misunderstanding my point. The link that I and others have been deleting is blatantly anti-semitic. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Will it be acceptable if it is labelled as anti-semitic? Sam and Paul, would you accept this label if they keep the link? - ]]] 16:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Put it in the article on anti-Semitism. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:So, you don't find it to be acceptable criticism. Worth a thought, anyway. - ]]] 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How would you define acceptable criticism? (I'm on neither side of this but looking for the boundaries.) - ]]] 17:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As I said above, there is acceptable criticism ''within'' the community -- for example, debates between Orthodox and Reform Jews. There have been debates between Judaism and other religions, though not -- to my knowledge -- recently (e.g. debates between Jews and Christians in the Roman and Middle ages). There are other "criticisms" that I canimagine are legitimate, but may not belong in this article -- for example, secular humanist Jews may have criticisms of Judaism (I hesitate only because their criticisms are probably criticisms of all religions, and would be more appropriate linked to a religion article). There are other criticisms that are legit but definitely belong on another page -- for example, criticism of Israeli policies (the wall, the settlements, second class citizenship of Israeli Arabs, and so on) that belong on the Israel page (many Jews, most Jews, are not Israeli and these policies that are being criticized are not strictly "Jewish"). Completely unacceptable criticisms would be anti-Semitic slurs like "The Jews control Hollywood" or "The Jews control the banks." These slurs are no more acceptable than racist slurs against Blacks would be, especially when linked to a page on African-Americans! ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not referring to the links in question, I can see plenty of non-Jewish criticisms that would belong here. You do not need to be of a religion in order to have valid criticisms. In fact, I would think that a balanced article would need criticisms from outside the object in question. (Atheist analysis, perhaps.) I do agree with you that slurs and slandar alone are not criticisms. Since this page is on Judaism I am sure that there are non-Jewish criticisms that belong in the critics section. (The current links aside) can you tell me that there could never be a non-Jewish criticism that would belong on a Judaism article? Are you of the opinion that only Jews can criticize Judaism? If so, we will have some issues on an Islam article. - ]]] 18:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No, I do not think that only Jews can criticize Judaism. But since Jews have been in a minority for (with the exception of a couple of hundred years, and, since 1949, Israel) most criticism of Judaism has occured in a political context of oppression. One cannot evaluate a criticism against Judaism without being clear about what motivates it (I think this is generally true of course). It is very important to distinguish between such criticism and other criticisms. Also, there is a crucial difference between Judaism on the one hand and Christianity and Islam on the other -- a difference that, while fundemental to Christianity, is nevertheless one that many people who grow up in a Christian society find hard to understand. Judaism is, as Paul suggests, a religion of the flesh. It is not about what someone believes, or feels in one's heart, so much as belonging to the nation of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. (Atheism is not really a criticism of Judaism since one can be Jewish without believing in God, although this is admitedly rare. What are other "criticisms" you imagine? That the Torah is not written by God? Well, many Jews do not believe it was written by God, so this isn't a criticism of Judaism). It used to shock me when a Christian friend would explain that the child of a Christian is not automatically or necessarily Christian -- a child of a Jewish mother (and for some, a Jewish father as well) is autonatically Jewish, and stays so unless they consciously renounce being Jewish. In this sense, perhaps "criticisms of Judaism" is less like a criticism of Islam and more like a criticism of "Arabs." ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good response. The last line is a good evaluator of criticism of Jews but not of Judaism. My understanding is that the term refers to the religion and now the people. (Somehow the culture is in there but still this is really about the religion since you can be Jewish and not believe in Judaism.) I have listed to a woman named Irshad Manji speak on Islam and her belief that the Quran was not written by God. She has much to say about Jews that are not well received by Moslems and much against Israel that is well received. Do you read criticisms from non-Jews? Have you found any that are credible? - ]]] 19:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My main point is that the very nature of Judaism makes it difficult if not impossible to distinguish between "religion" and "ethnicity" -- concepts that are culture-bound, and meaningful in modern Western societies but not necessarily useful in other contexts. When you say that one can be Jewish and not believe in Judaism, I think you are applying a Platonic/Christian binary between being and believing. A male Jew is Jewish by virtue of circumcision -- this is not a volitional act by the circumcised person, and does ''not'' represent belief (although many Greek-influenced Jewish philosophers, like Paul, have suggested this -- my point is that the suggestion reflects Greek thought more than Jewish thought and has no basis in the Hebrew Bible). A secondary but still important point is that "criticism" has to be understood in context. Do I accept criticism by non-Jews? Well, I don't know why not -- but I woold need to know why they are making the criticism, and what the effect of the criticism might be. Of course I feel the same way about "praise" of Judaism. Surely you know many Jews and even many Zionists are skeptical if not suspicious of right-wing fundamentalist Christian support for Israel. And is the "criticism" really a criticism? As I said, most Jews would not take the statements "God does not exist" or "The Bible was not revealed by God" as criticisms of Judaism. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think its one thing to have *theological* or philosophical criticism of the Jewish religion (and this can be internal or external, I have no problem with a link from a Christian viewpoint arguing, for example, that the Jewish religion is wrong not to accept Christ etc or from a Islamic viewpoint arguing why Jews should accept Islam or why Jews should accept Buddah or what have you or a secular or athiestic viewpoint on why Jewish religious beliefs do not hold water). I think it's also valid to have criticisms, internal or external, say of the Haskalah and moves towards Jewish assimilation or criticisms of Jewish nationalism (though if it gets into Zionism it belongs in that article). But that's all quite different from anti-Semitic Jew-baiting or Jew-hatred, ie criticisms that have no scholarly or intellectual basis (or even factual basis) but are just propaganda attempts at spreading hatred against Jews rather than engaging in a serious debate on Jewish issues. Jew-Watch brings nothing to the debate, it is not "criticism" but abuse and vitriol and it is ridden with factual errors and distortions. I don't see any reason why Misplaced Pages should list it in an article on Judaism as some sort of source of either information or criticism. If it belongs anywhere it's in an article on Anti-Semitism as an example of the practice. ] 21:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree -- although I do think that theological and philosophical critiques ought to be situated and contextualized. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you for the responses. I agree that jewwatch is inappropriate. I am glad that critical links will remain. I hope to see at least one more link that is truly critical of Judaism (not jews). I think an internal criticism would be most appropriate. - ]]] 03:44, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== willful misunderstandings == |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I didn't see the subtlety you were trying to get at, the distinction of race/culture vrs. religion/philosophy. Maybe you are right, and racial critisisms shouldn't be present in the form of external links, but rather a link to racism, or anti-semite, or whatever. It brings up a more important issue to me, which is 'are jews a race or a religion, or both?'. Every Jew I have ever known insists it is a religion, not a race, but then my jewish friends tend to pride themselves on their family 'going back' to moses, and so forth. Ethnic history/tradition is an important factor amongst jews. In summary, your view about the external link makes sense to me, so long as jews are to be viewed not as a religion, but as either as a race/ethnicity, or some conglomeration of race and religion, much like sikhs, jains, or hundu's. Regardless, critisism not based on race, but rather on religious doctrines should be present, altho I agree that is not what jew watch appears to be about, and despite its high google rating, it does seem to be a site of rather poor quality. Cheers, ] ] 01:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:I appreciate your response -- I'm satisfied that we understand one another well enough to avoid conflict on the article. As for my subtle point -- well, let me put it this way: people studying people is not the same as people studying rocks. When people study rocks it isn't hard for people to agree that rocks may be igneous, metamorphic, or sedementary. But when people study people things are more complicated for two reasons. First, unlike rocks, people have their own opinion of themselves. Second, unlike the case with people studying rocks, the observer and the observed are both people. You make this distinction between race/ethnicity and religion/philosophy. I say that when you look at the authoritative Jewish texts, the Bible and the Talmud, you find no such distinction or basis for such a distinction. It is a distinction foreign to Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism. Why do you have this distinction? I am not sure but I think it is a product of a number of forces, some old (Platonic dualism) and others recent (modernity -- see Weber and Habermas), but both Western. You ask why some Jewish friends of yours insist that Judaism is a religion and not a race, and I repeat a commonplace I have repeated on other pages: you have to look at things in context. How Jews talk about themselves today has a lot to do with the influence of Christianity ahd the Enlightenment (after the Enlightenment, Reform and Orthodox Jews claimed that Judaism is a religion in order to make themselves more intelligible to Europeans, and in order to make Judaism fit into modern life -- but this is a rather recent phenomenon). It also has to do with the aftermath of the Holocaust: Hitler killed Jews because of their race so you can understand why some Jews today insist that they are not a race. I am not saying that Jews are a race either, not in the modern sense -- because Jewish identity was forged in a very different context. Also the meaning of race has changed. Dio Cassius wrote that "I do not know the ofigin of this name (Jews) but it is applied to all men, even foreigners, who follow their customs. This race is found among Romans." Note that "belief" does not enter into it (so creed, dogma, theology and philosophy certainly are irrelevant). But what does he mean by race here? Certainly not what we mean today, since someone can convert to the Jewish race by following their customs. As I said, Judaism developed before, and outside of, the Hellenic and Roman empires; even their ways of talking about people didn't apply well to Jews. Actually, I thought most of this is discussed in the article on Judaism, and on Comparing and COntrasting Judaism and Christianity. Or are you questioning the content of those articles? Surely you read this article, before commenting on the talk page, right? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
The real "source" of "Anti-semitism" has been the "Mosaic Distinction" which has created an artificial "Jewish Identity" of "Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Language, and Culture" in one. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BMxhzp-iogEJ:www.rishon.com.ar/rishon/rice1.asp+Freud,+Moses+and+the+Religions+of+Egyptian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
"Anti-semitism" is the natural result of "Semitism" or "Jewishness" as a FALSE Identity, and which places ONLY JEWS as being the only TRUE HUMANS and as being the only "GOD's CHOSEN PEOPLE" and of being the only TRUE RELIGION and as being and having the only TRUE PERSONAL and TRIBAL "GOD":YHWH. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Hey Paul == |
|
|
|
|
|
You've got the wrong page, check these out |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
the stuff your talking about here is better suited for these pages. p.s. be careful! Remember ] and ]. ] ] 18:19, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
What Paul wrote is factually incorrect and anti-Semitic; there is no place for these comments on any page other than ] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
What was "factually incorrect" and "anti-Semitic" about what I wrote, Steve? |
|
|
What I wrote is factual and valid "criticisms" of the "false identity" that is "Judaism" and "Judaism" is the actual topic of this article and not "Anti-semitism", which is itself a ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Normative inversion is central to Assmann's argument pertaining to another category that he introduces and that is the 'mosaic distinction.' Perhaps we should define the latter term first. When Moses created his new religion, or rather a reformulation and adaptation of Akhenaten's religion, he did everything possible to turn polytheism on its head. This 'distinction' was supposed to be the distinguishing element between true and false religion. In contrast to polytheism which was universal and prejudice-free, the Mosaic religion was absolute, exclusive, and intolerant of other religions and here, according to Assmann and many historians of the period of antiquity, lay the seeds of anti-Semitism." |
|
|
|
|
|
The real "source" of "Anti-semitism" has been the "Mosaic Distinction" which has created an artificial "Jewish Identity" of "Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Language, and Culture" in one. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:BMxhzp-iogEJ:www.rishon.com.ar/rishon/rice1.asp+Freud,+Moses+and+the+Religions+of+Egyptian&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
"Anti-semitism" is the natural result of "Semitism" or "Jewishness" as a FALSE Identity, and which places ONLY JEWS as being the only TRUE HUMANS and as being the only "GOD's CHOSEN PEOPLE" and of being the only TRUE RELIGION and as being and having the only TRUE PERSONAL and TRIBAL "GOD":YHWH. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-PV |
|
|
|
|
|
PS--And your obvious attempts to have me banned and censored is proof of your own lying hypocrisy and intolerance of any valid "criticisms" of ] as a "false identity" that is the root and source of "Anti-semitism", actually and more accurately, "anti-JEWISHNESS" as being a FALSE IDENTITY, and that is the real cause of "Hate" of any Non-Jews: |
|
|
|
|
|
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud@...> |
|
|
Subject: Re: Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism |
|
|
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english |
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:44:26 +0000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, it is best to request mediation on this matter with him, although I would vote to accept this matter for arbitration as it sits now (although I know certain other arbitrators would not). |
|
|
|
|
|
Fred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste-GtutR9TLYbWHXe+LvDLADg <at> public.gmane.org> |
|
|
Reply-To: English Misplaced Pages <wikien-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA <at> public.gmane.org> |
|
|
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:04:58 -0400 |
|
|
To: wikien-l-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA <at> public.gmane.org |
|
|
Subject: Paul Vogel's anti-Semitism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Vogel has been adding an anti-Semitic link to the Judaism page. I explained in detail on the talk page why I think this is inappropriate, and I deleted the link. Although some other users believe that such a link is acceptable as long as it is clearly identified, I think if Misplaced Pages is going to have any links to anti-Semitic material it should be on the anti-Semitism page. |
|
|
|
|
|
In any event, after I explained why I deleted the link, Vogel responded, "Any hue and cry of "anti-semitism" or "nazism" etc. ad nauseum for such a link is not relevant, if one is being hypocritical in actually allowing similar pov and slanderous links on cosmotheism, or any other religion, within Wiki articles.-PV " -- a response that ignored my explanation entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
I replied, "I am not "allowing" slanderous links on the cosmotheism page. Two rights do not make a wrong. If you have a problem on another site, seek mediation -- don't take out your frustrations here." |
|
|
|
|
|
And then Vogel made clear the anti-Semitic logic by which problems on the cosmotheism page are really "Jewish" problems: "Aren't you? Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the cosmotheism page have been written by "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted upon their actual "removal" have you? The problem is on THIS SITE, WIKIPEDIA. The lying hypocrisy of your own "ilk" is responsible for this nonsense, and so it actually is YOUR OWN PROBLEM. Unfortunately, there is no effective medication for psychological projection on your and your own ilk's part, but, hope springs eternal!.-" |
|
|
|
|
|
Do I need to explain my outrage? Vogel doesn't identify the people working on the cosmotheism as wikipedians but as "Jews." He doesn't identify me as a wikipedian but solely as a "Jew." And because I am a Jew, he holds me responsible for what other "Jews" have done on another site. |
|
|
|
|
|
This use of "Jew" as a slur; the identification of my "ilk" as hypocrites, reeks of anti-Semitism. If this itself does not merit banning, I certainly think some strong action should be taken. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
Steve |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven L. Rubenstein |
|
|
Associate Professor |
|
|
Department of Sociology and Anthropology |
|
|
Bentley Annex |
|
|
Ohio University |
|
|
Athens, Ohio 45701 |
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
"Outrage", indeed! |
|
|
|
|
|
"Each one of those 4 slanderous POV articles and each one linked as "criticisms" on the ] page have been written by Marxist "Jews", and you have not ever protested and ever insisted |
|
|
upon their actual "removal" have you?" |
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, Steve hasn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
"In contrast to polytheism which was universal and prejudice-free, the Mosaic religion was absolute, exclusive, and intolerant of other religions and here, according to Assmann and many historians of the period of antiquity, lay the seeds of anti-Semitism." |
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing like selective "outrage" to reveal |
|
|
] |
|
|
and its typical "lying hypocrisy".-PV |
|
|
|
|
|
PS--Here too!: |
|
|
|
|
|
User:66.2.156.69 |
|
|
Anonymous troll vandalising Judaism, and Holocaust. Reverts etcAndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
Do we need to quickpoll this user? If he continues, I'd feel comfortable giving him a day off on my own discretion - and I suspect dozens of admins would agree with me. Pakaran. 03:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you Pakaran. This is an IP user, and the activity seems to be simple vandalism that clearly violates NPOV. If the user continues I will ban the IPs for 24 hours and protect any of the pages if nessecary, such as the user coming back under another IP and re-editing the pages in question with the same vandalism. Seems a simple issue to me. --Flockmeal 03:17, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it this person had been blocked at one (or more) points for 24 hours with no effect. Now that it is clear that he is an anti-semite using Misplaced Pages as a platform to spread anti-semetic views, I believe his should be banned. His contributions to articles are at the very best contentious -- but usually they amount to no kmore than adding obscure and self-serving links to neo-nazi websites. On talk pages his anti-Semitism is clear. When I wrote, on the Judaism talk page, that a link to an anti-semitic site is inappropriate, he replied that people were placing inappropriate remarks on the cosmotheism page. This is very bad behavior at[REDACTED] -- no contributor should "punish" one page begause of something that happened on another page. More importantly, he is punishing me for what others have done, an example of collective guilt that makes perfect sense in his anti-semitism, but not in a[REDACTED] community. He practically said that Jews control wikipedia, which is a classic anti-semitic stance. I think he should be banned. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No change, no improvement. When is there going to be some action?AndyL 03:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
Just ban this idiot. Don't go through quickpolls since this is unambiguous vandalism. And do it quick. Ban the IP before he/she gets a user name, which complicates things when we need to ban vandals. 172 20:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
I've just banned the IP. Along with hard-banned User:Zog, this Nazi scumbag has no place on WP. 172 20:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
This should not be the place to list vandalizing anons. I agree with 172. - Tεxτurε 20:38, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
This user has not vandalized anything, only expressed a strong POV. silsor 20:43, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
I was not voting. Only agreeing that anon vandals should not be Quickpolled and should be banned. I haven't voted (and I don't even see anywhere to vote.) - Tεxτurε 20:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
Silsor, this user wasn't guilty of, say, childish Michael-style vandalism, but he/she's in league with other POV trolls/hard-banned vandals (e.g., JoeM and Zog) who couldn't function as constructive editors or writers on WP. 172 21:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
Vandalism is deliberate mischief, but it seems this user believes what s/he is writing. Antisemitism is not against any policy and neither is being "in league" (which I have not seen) with other people. I have reviewed all of this user's edits and I think we need to treat his/her POV in the same way we would treat any other user's POV. silsor 21:16, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
User:216.99.245.135 |
|
|
possibly same anonymous troll as 66.2.156.69. Same behaviour as above. AndyL 03:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See my comment above. Slrubenstein 12:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
Steve, |
|
|
|
|
|
Stop deleting the valid links to "criticisms", |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Judaism&action=history |
|
|
just because you don't happen in your own pov to like them and do |
|
|
falsely call them "Anti-Semitic". |
|
|
Thanks! :D |
|
|
-PV |
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree that there should be critical links to Judaism I do not agree with the extreme links being suggested by Paul. - ]]] 17:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? |
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to agree with the "extreme" critical "links" to ]??? |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Cosmotheism#Criticism |
|
|
If you allow these Jewish/Marxist slanderous "critical links" within the ] article, then, so should you allow my "critical links" to ], |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Judaism#Criticism |
|
|
both here and above and within that article: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cosmotheism |
|
|
-PV |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
== Introduction == |
|
|
With reference to ], I have moved the reference to the ] article to a "disambiguation line" in italics and indented, and added a header for "introduction" to create a "lead section". Presently, this is small; perhaps the lead section should comprise 2-3 paragraphs, as suggested in ]. ]<BR>] | ] 16:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Imitatio dei == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] It's not, there is a chart in Mindell's book. |
|
Can someone work a reference to ] into the article? -- ] 06:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:David P Mindell (2009). . Harvard University Press. p. 224. ] ]. |
|
|
:The book is trying to make a point of evolving things. The writer is an ornithologist and his PhD is in genetic research. The book isn't even about religion or the study of theology. It's a tertiary source, arguably it should be removed and replaced with one or more of the sources he cites in his book for making the chart. |
|
|
:] (2000). . Westminster John Knox Press. p. 1. ] ]. |
|
|
:This is the main in-line source currently cited. After reading Millers book, it becomes apparent that he isn't using the term yahwism the way it is implied. He 's describing the worship of yahweh with no real focus on Judaism itself. Went back to count to make sure, outside of citations, he uses the word Judaism 4 times throughout the entire book, to put in perspective, he uses the term Christianity 4 times as well. The terms that would equate to Judaism in monotheistic worship would be Orthodox yahwism. |
|
|
:based on his acknowledgement, |
|
|
:''At the heart of this analysis is a recognition especially of three fundamental types of Israelite religion: family religion, local cults, and official state religion. The reader familiar with '''Rainer Albertz’s comprehensive two-volume study of the history of Israel’s religion''' will not be surprised to encounter such a reconstruction of the religion of Israel. I am much indebted to Albertz, but in this regard more to his earlier monograph on official and popular religion than to his history, which had not appeared when the basic draft of chapter 2 was first written.'' |
|
|
:I would make the argument, that yahwism doesn't need to be in the article lead for an ethno religion when Yahwism is a scholar term that means multiple things depending on if it's pre-prophetic, post-prophetic, pre-maccabee, or post exile. |
|
|
:The dates of emergence and claim of yahwism being called a semitic religion are also not found in those source. |
|
|
:The final in-line source listed, literally uses Miller and Albertz as the source of information. The final source is quoting information that would be derived from John Seters work, specifically Deuteronomy , his argument is that Deuteronomy was the first book of the Torah to be written which places Judaism start around 620BCE. |
|
|
:Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011). |
|
|
:It's important to have in the infobox from a theological standpoint, but it distracts from Judaism being an ethnic religion. It was added to the lead most recently in 2021, based on the history, without citing an inline source, it was just piecing together what was already in the article and attaching Miller, Patrick as the reused source, possibly because he makes use of the word yahwism throughout his book but none of the original line information matches that source. |
|
|
:Yahwism was placed in Judaism article as filled: |
|
|
:Appeared In the infobox; |
|
|
] |
|
|
:Appeared in lead; |
|
|
] |
|
|
: |
|
|
:I have no idea if that was helpful, but the current in-line sources do not directly support the current statement. Although, they are pretty interesting books. ] (]) 05:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for a detailed response. I've removed this sentence, I think that it misleads the reader more than it informs them. If you can come up with an alternative that would be great. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
== External links - too many? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Changes == |
|
Does this article really need all of its many external links? There seem to be too many: is it not in danger of turning into a link hub for all of Judaism? --] 08:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@], we generally discuss content issues here, not on users' personal talk pages. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Why is a Criticism section necessary or appropriate? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Criticism section == |
|
I haven't found a Criticism links section in the articles about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc. Why is one required for Judaism alone? ] 00:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section feels weird... it's about internal debates not criticisms... maybe it needs a title change or to be removed. ] (]) 02:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I doubt anyone suggests that. My rule of thumb is that critcism sections are needed in articles where it is possible to write one. I doubt you can find enough verifiable criticisms of sikhism to warrant a criticism section, but w christianity you prob could. Obviously Judaism has its share of critics, no one disputes that, do they? ] ] 00:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) |
|
And of many others, see Arabs. So why not Jacob/Israel? Or Moses, the first to receive the Law. This (Abraham = the first, or progenitor) isn't the only interpretation. Arminden (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)