Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

FAQs

I notice that some questions about this article are asked repeatedly, so in order to make it more efficient to respond, I've gathered responses to some important questions here in one place.

What is the purpose of this article? Criticism of religion is an ancient and broad area of human discourse, and all major faiths have been subject to extensive criticism. The purpose of this article is to document noteworthy criticisms that have been discussed by reliable secondary sources.
Why is this one religion being singled out? All major faiths have similar articles, including Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of Christianity, etc. See also Criticism of Religion.
Why use those other "Criticism of someReligion" articles as guides for this article? Because there are only a few editors working on this article, and when we have differences of opinion, we need guidance from the broader community. Those other "Criticism of ..." articles are all over five years old, and have arrived at their current state after years of consensus-building.
Shouldn't this article be deleted? This article was nominated for deletion once, and the result was 'Keep'. If you feel it should be deleted, follow the nomination procedure at WP:AFD. Note that every "Criticism of someReligion" article has been nominated for deletion (some multiple times) and the result is always 'Keep'.
Doesn't this article violate the WP:Coatrack essay? No. That essay condemns articles that try to mislead readers by surreptitiously providing content that is not represented by the article's title. In this article, the article's title accurately describes the content.
Isn't this article fatally biased because it focuses on negative opinions and ideas? No. The encyclopedia contains scores of articles entitled "Criticsm of ...", including Criticism of Wikipedia. Such articles have been accepted by the Wikipedia community, particularly in the domain of religion, because criticism of religion is a significant topic of discourse both in popular culture and the academic world.
Why doesn't this article contain positive criticisms also? It is true that in art and literature, the word "criticism" often encompasses both positive and negative analysis, but in the realm of religion, particularly within Wikipedia, it is limited to negative criticisms. However, this article should include appropriate positive/rebuttal information to balance each criticism.
Doesn't this article violate the WP:Point of view policy? The remedy for point-of-view issues is to improve the wording and to add balancing information. Every individual criticism discussed in this article should presented in a neutral manner and must be accompanied by balancing information.
Isn't this article a POV fork from Judaism article? This article is not a POV fork because (1) the main Judaism article would become too large if this content were included, and (2) there are primary sources and secondary sources that discuss the criticisms on their own (in other words, criticism of religion is a major source of discussion by itself).
The criticism about slavery/violence/deicide/etc is already discussed in Judaism and slavery (etc) so why include it in this article? WP:Summary Style and WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guidelines endorse high-level articles that summarize content that is described in greater detail in other articles - in fact, such articles are encouraged if they help readers navigate the encyclopedia. Also, see answer to next question.
Doesn't this article violate the WP:No original research policy because it is gathering unrelated material together? "Criticism of religion" in general, and "criticism of Judaism" are notable topics in their own right, and are broadly supported by thousands of primary and secondary sources. Many of the primary and secondary sources gather together a variety of criticisms together and address them as a group, and this article reflects that treatment. Examples of primary sources that list multiple criticisms of Judaism include ancient Christian polemics, medieval Disputations, modern Evangelicals, Islamic polemics, New Atheists, and the reform movement in Judaism. Also, see answer to previous question.
Won't this article encourage bigotry because readers might be influenced by the content? That is a genuine concern, however the remedy is to ensure that the content is accompanied by information that provides context and balance. Deleting content for fear of misuse is contrary to WP:Not censored guideline.
Why does this article contain a section on slavery/kosher slaughter/circumcision/etc ... those are not criticisms of Judaism per se, are they? Criticisms of religion entail criticisms of the laws, practices, texts, doctrines, and leaders. A religion is defined by its laws, practices, etc so criticism of those is criticism of the religion.
Why does this article contain a section on slavery/violence/etc ... those doctrines were practiced in the ancient past, but are no longer in effect, true? This article contains all notable criticisms of the religion, regardless of when they originated. If the law/doctrine is no longer in effect, that fact should be prominently noted in the article to provide balance and neutrality.
Why does this article contain a section on menstruation/divorce/discrimination/etc ... those doctrines or laws are very minor and not representative of the religion, true? If there is no reliable secondary source that discusses a criticism, that criticism should be excluded from the article. However, if secondary sources discuss it, it can be included. No WP policy excludes content because it is "minor". The opinion of individual editors on "minor or not" is irrelevant: the only test is whether reliable sources document the criticism. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not to content within an article.
But doesn't that mean that this article would become a huge list of complaints about Judaism? No. Only criticisms that are documented by reliable secondary sources are included. There are probably no more than 20 criticisms that meet that test.
Doesn't inclusion of content on minor criticisms violate the WP:Undue weight policy? If the criticisms are supported by reliable sources, particulary secondary or academic sources, they should be included in the encyclopedia. The undue weight policy simply requires that the criticisms be presented in a balanced manner, and that minority views be identifed as minority views, and should be accompanied by a discussion of the majority view. The remedy for undue weight concerns is adding contextual information, not deleting content.
The criticism on divorce/homosexuality/etc is only applicable to the Orthodox/Hasidic/Conservative/etc branch, so why is it in this article? This article could be broken up into subarticles that address specific branches of Judaism, however, many criticisms span two or more branches, so that would lead to lots of repetition, and a "merger" effort would probably result. Therefore, it is better for readers to consolidate all in one article. If a criticism is limited to one or two banches, that fact should be noted in the article.
The criticism about kosher slaughter/zionism/etc is a fringe viewpoint, so doesn't it violate WP:Fringe? No. The Fringe-viewpoint guideline addresses scientific theories that are supported by little or no scientific evidence, and requires that they be identified as such and be supported by reliable sources. "Fringe" has no meaning in the context of a religious criticism, provided that the criticism is documented by reliable sources.
Why was a POV/expert/etc tag deleted from the top of the article? Tags in an article must be accompanied by a comment on the Talk page that explains the specific shortcoming of the article, and suggests a course of action to remedy the tag. Tags that do not have such a comment on the Talk page are subject to removal.

--Noleander (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — That is an essay. Why is it being called "FAQS"? Let us set in place some reasonable priorities determining what this article is about. You haven't addressed what criteria for inclusion apply to this article. Please articulate for me what criteria should apply in order to determine what gets included and excluded from this article. This article should not be an indiscriminate dumping ground for anything any editor cares to contribute. Remedying that requires emplacement of well-reasoned criteria. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Bus Stop has asked for repeatedly: What is your criterion/set of criteria for this article? You actions and additions in the past seem to indicate that if you find a sentence somewhere that is critical of Jews, Jewish traditions, or Jewish law, you were happy to include it in this article, and that criterion is inappropriate for this article. Please start with principles, not specifics. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a detailed, specific scope for this article above, in the section Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Consensus needed for scope of article. I suggest that we just continue the discussion in that section. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination

I have attempted to add a sourced paragraph in the Discrimination subsection. I dont usually do editing on this level (im more of a wikignome), i would appreciate feedback. did i get it right?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

im disappointed by not having my request to give me feedback honored. Edit comments are not the same as feedback on the talk page. i wish i had simply proposed the addition here first, to save myself the trouble. I do think that one could find sources that show that some (notable) people believe that some of israels laws stem directly from the religion, thus making this an appropriate addition, even if its not considered a fair analysis by other notable people. i will not edit war, though, and will assume that my attempted addition is, by consensus, not welcome.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Violence

I am removing the first statement i the paragraph about violence because the statement are not justified with evidence, and no sources are cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Section: "Criticism from Islam"

Does this section belong at Anti-Judaism, it being a "theological view antagonistic toward Judaism"? Chesdovi (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "Criticism of Islam" section and the "Failure to recognize messiahship relating to Jesus of Nazareth" subsection (from "Criticism from Christianity" section) are more properly placed in the article Anti-Judaism. But the section "Insults directed at Jesus" section and the intro sentence on disputations (in "Criticisms from Christianity" section) are more appropriate in this article. Also, this article should have a brief WP:Summary style section defining Anti-Judaism, explaining how it is embodies criticisms ("competing theologies" etc) and linking to it. --Noleander (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a relevant criticism for this article. Thanks. 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of a particular halacha (religious law)

Avraham has removed material based upon the premise that: "Criticism of a particular halacha (religious law) is not a criticism of the religion itself", although the lead states: "religious texts, laws, and practices". If this is the case, what is Divorce and agunah, Niddah, bris, etc. doing here? Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Judaism's treatment of women manifests itself in various laws, but the criticism is how the religion relates to women. Shechita was a criticism in a vacuum, having nothing to do with th ereligion itself per se. Of course, I could be mistaken :). -- Avi (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree. If the religious texts are criticized to the state where they have no legs to stand on, then the religion was certainly criticized. Which then leads to a question of, "When is it considered criticism of the religion?" which gets to be a sticky issue. So a better solution is needed than "Criticism of a particular halacha (religious law) is not a criticism of the religion itself" --Iankap99 (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That criticism belongs (and exists) in the articles about that law. It is not a criticism of the religion, especially in as much as there exist branches of the religion that do not follow those laws. -- Avi (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bigots do not need logic in that there exist branches that don't follow the law, to use texts as an excuse to single out a religion for being false. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Section "Discrimination against non-Jews"

I have come across an article which would indicate that the name of this section is misleading. According to the Neturei Karta, the Sabbath may also not be violated to save the life of a Jewish Sabbath desecrator:

"גלעד שליט, שאינו שומר תורה ומצוות - והוידאו האחרון לימד אותנו גם איפה הוא אוכל (במסעדות בגליל בהשגחת בד"ץ העדה הדרוזית), ואף מחלל שבת בפרהסיה ולא מניח תפילין - הרי הוא אינו בכלל ´אחיך´. אין כל חיוב לפדותו או להצילו על פי ההלכה היהודית, ואין מחללין עליו שבת במקרה של פיקוח נפש".

Therefore this section should be renamed: Discrimination against Sabbath violators, if we are to include these fringe views. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only thing misleading about the section as it stands is the phrasing "its religious laws contain several provisions" -- well, if (nearly) all authorities agree that it isn't the practical law (halakha lemaaseh), then it's at best confusing to say the "laws" discriminate. Nevertheless, the force of the point -- that the peshat of the Talmud and some of the codes is discriminatory in this way seems to be uncontroversially true. This is notable if only for its historical importance. The Neturei Karta bit you brought seems to me really to relate to a halakhic principle not currently in the article, that a public desecrater of the Sabbath is like a Gentile/idolator in all respects. Since, again, the Neturei Karta seem to be stating this as the halakha lemaaseh, that's certainly fringe, but criticism of the principle itself would seem to me to be appropriate in the article. Savant1984 (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not beleieve that the Neturei karta should be referenced for anything outside articles about themselves or their members. They are the classic example of a WP:FRINGE group and are inappropriate to be added to this article. -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that your opinion, or do you have reliable sources that would justify using WP:FRINGE to exclude such information concerning that the Neturei karta should NOT "be referenced for anything outside articles about themselves or their members"? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.…If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

-- Avi (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is "do you have reliable sources that would justify using WP:FRINGE," you have not answered this question. Where are these reliable sources? Please do answer. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article Neturei Karta, specifically the footnotes. For example [1], [2], and [3]. -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of that article is in dispute. Also, the sources you list above are POV, which leaves the question unanswered. There are no independent reliable sources present. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources are reliable. As I mentioned, please review WP:NPOV, you seem to be under a misunderstanding. POV requires that the treatment of the subject be in accord with how it is treated in external reliable sources. All sources other than NK themselves state that NK is a fringe and tiny movement, ergo that is how they are treated on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. You continue to fail to answer my question. There are no reliable sources to back the comments you make. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the entire conversation; denying the obvious does not make it less true. What you can say is that there are no sources that you like that support the statement, but that is selbstverständlich, as you seem to be holding the opinion of a tiny minority of a few hundred, maybe five thousand people. Regardless, wiki policies are clear and NK should not be referenced for their opinions outside of articles like Neturei Karta itself to comply with WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but facts must be verified by reliable sources independent of the subject. Please present these if you know of any. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there even one source saying that Jews discriminate against non-Jews? If not then the assertion that Jews discriminate against non-Jews is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, is it not? Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends if the sources are reliable and independent. Disputes about the reliability of sources, especially their inclusion in articles, are better left to the dispute resolution page and/or reliable sources page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, I see sources all over the material you deleted. How can you delete it unilaterally as original research? Especially lacking consensus here? Savant1984 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no source in the article saying that Jews discriminate against non-Jews. Can you show me such a source? The assertion (that Jews discriminate against non-Jews) needs a source. Or it shouldn't be in the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below. You've put "who?" tags on sentences with references that apparently answer them. I've given another source from Ernst Simon below. Unless you've checked and can confirm that the references don't say what they're purported to say (and, again, I'm quite sure that there are indeed sources that say that) I don't see grounds to remove them from the article. Further, there is no assertion in the article that "Jews discriminate against non-Jews", it says "[Judaism's] religious laws contain several provisions that which are construed to be of a discriminationary nature against non-Jews". Savant1984 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the sections had sources only in as much as the explanation of what the law is. I am uncertain that they discussed the specific criticisms in the subsection. Therefore, any relationship would be original synthesis, even if true, and ineligible for wikipedia as sourced. Not having checked each one, I may be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Fraade and Novak I believe do mention it as an actual criticism. Also, honestly, there's no shortage of sources and common knowledge of this as a criticism, both internally and externally, throughout history. For one I just happen to have a reference to on my bookshelf (in another book of Jewish philosophical essays), Ernst Simon's "The Neighbor (Re'a) Whom We Shall Love". Are people like Simon not notable enough, or is their criticism not notable enough? I really don't understand the desire to purge criticisms from this page. Savant1984 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through this whole section and all the sources provided (but one that I cannot access) provide no criticisms for discrimination towards non-Jews. I have therefore deleted the entire section. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The criticism in the "Discrimination" section was clearly "The laws of Judaism discriminate against non-Jews" (meaning, Jews and non-Jews were treated differently). The criticism was not "Jews are currently actively discriminating against non-Jews". There is abundant sourcing in support of the former criticism. Please read the content more carefully. Most academics concur that discrimination (as a result of those laws) is not practiced in modern times, and that is clearly noted in the section. If a law of the religion is outdated and no longer followed, that fact should be noted in the article; but the section should not be deleted. The reason critics bring up these "out dated" criticisms is to point out that religions are sometimes chauvinistic, and also to show that religious laws dynamic and changeable, and hence cannot be divine (so the critics claim) . --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not care if the laws did discriminate in ancient times or still do today. What matters is that those sources provided are not actively criticising the tracts. They are discussing and analysing them, providing justifications and the reasoning behind them. No criticism towards Judaism or these laws in particular is ever mentioned. You are reading into the sources that they are critical of Judaism, but they are not. It is possible that only the likes of Israel Shahak use such texts in tandem with open criticism of the religion. These sources, however, are not critical sources. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources. Secondary sources analyse the criticism and hence are superior. User JayJG earlier in these Talk pages suggested that we avoid primary sources altogether, and I concurred. You may want to take up the issue with him. If you really want a primary source, one is "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak. Portions of it are online here: [4]. Chapter 5 is devoted to the (allegedly) discriminatory laws. The subheadings of that chapter are:

CHAPTER 5 The Laws Against Non-Jews

Murder and Genocide
Saving of Life
Desecrating the Sabbath to Save Life
Sexual Offenses
Status
Money and Propertyl
Abuse
Attitudes to Christianity and Islam

--Noleander (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Shahak is not a notable critic of religion. -- Avi (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of sources for section “Discrimination against non-Jews”

Per my edit: Source discusses the "double standard" in the adjudication of civil claims between Jews/non-Jews and contains no criticisms whatsoever. It in fact uses quotation marks for words like "discriminatory". I have scanned through pages 145-165 of Fraade‘s book and have not come across any mention of the primary sources Noleander claimed are mentioned, i.e.: "medieval disputations, Christian polemics, Islamic polemics, some Christian fundamentalists, some secular/activist Jews (e.g. Israel Shahak), and New Atheists." Fraade's book only contains quotes from the Jewish legal texts, nothing else. Please explain why this is considered a secondary source with regards to criticism of the discrimination provided for in Jewish law. Indeed, page. 147 states: “The following passage from the Mishnah is the locus classicus for discussion of the “double standard” applied to the non-Jew in Jewish law.” This source does not bring any “primary sources” of criticism. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet clearly acknowledges that such primary sources do indeed exist, and are significant enough to have a locus classicus source for criticism in the Mishnah! The appropriate response here is adding sources, I think, not deleting the material. Savant1984 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The question now is: Is disscusion synonymous with criticism. Chesdovi (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how odd, disscusion (a misspelling) points to debate, while discussion points to conversation...This does get to one of the roots of this matter. "Criticism" means different things in different contexts. It can mean simply "disapproval", a simple act. "Why don't you like him?" "Because he's a Jew and I don't like Jews." Alternately, and in a more scholarly sense (and probably more appropriate for Wikipedia), it can mean a serious examination and judgment of something. This article doesn't really distinguish between the two, and leans toward the first. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of that, Chesdovi. The sources don't have to criticise, they only have to document criticism. Savant1984 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Discussion" of the "double standard" = documentation of "criticism"? How do we know that those discussions contained any criticisms? We cannot use this source. I have not read the arguments above somewhere about not using Primary Sources in this article, but if we need to use Secondary Sources, they must clearly and unequivocally state that these texts are subject to criticism, surley? Chesdovi (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I grant you it's not the greatest source for this article, but the recognition that a double standard is asserted by some indicates that the criticism alluded to indeed exists. The response that makes sense to me is to get more sources, not to delete the material. Savant1984 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I will have to look at the other two sources provided. Thanks for your input here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected

While there's a healthy debate going on here, the article itself is just going back and forth with reverts. Sort it out first, then edit! Guettarda (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has been frozen after the majority of it was deleted, by editors who voted for the entire article to be deleted, while in the middle of an Afd. The info was sourced and should be added back to the article - at least until the Afd is closed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We always protect the wrong version. You can add a link from the AFD to the long version, so that people know there are two versions. But do that at your own peril - some people will be more inclined to delete the longer version. Guettarda (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your situation, and appreciate your advice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I think we've gotten into edit war territory. It seems to me that editors deleting material are doing so in the name of a consensus that does not exist here. Since it seems to me that this material was here well before the current spat started (and it's a lot more of a pain to go in and restore it piecemeal than to delete it again), the presumption should be for its inclusion and it should not be deleted unilaterally. So, anyway, it seems to me. Savant1984 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are at least three editors who are currently in this discussion who are against the deletion of the material that is being edit-warred over. I really don't think unilateral deletion is, therefore, appropriate. Savant1984 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was not unilateral. Each section was removed for a reason by different people. Please check the history and the archives. Each section needs justification why it should be restored. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The deletions were done by editors that do not like the content because it reflects negatively on Judaism. It is a simple case of "I dont like it". When pressed to provide rational explanations for the deletions, no sensible response is ever given: instead the "deletionists" start going around and around in circles, employing bullying and tag-team tactics. Improving this article is the last thing on their mind. If some of the content is offensive, the solution is to add balancing information to provide context to readers. Wikipedia is not censored. You are correct when you say that there are three editors cooperating in the deletion - but three wrongs don't make a right. Decisions in WP are not made by majority vote. --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Chesovdi's deletions on the basis of source examination -- as a far as I understand the requirement for sourcing, there's no reason the sources themselves have to criticise Judaism, merely that they testify that such criticism exists, which it seems they certainly do. Savant1984 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No way! They are merely analysing quotations from Jewish texts! To use them as a source for criticisms is OR. Chesdovi (talk)

That would be the definition of a WP:Secondary source, which we are supposed to use. As long as we (editors) aren't doing the analyzing, it's not WP:OR. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources given were discussing and analysing certain texts, providing justifications and the reasoning behind them. No criticism towards Judaism or these laws in particular is ever mentioned. How can thses be used as Secondary Sources for criticism when none is ever mentioned? Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends; taking one sentence out of context from one site (as I have seen Noleander do) and using that to justify an entire subsection is certainly a WP:UNDUE violation, and likely a WP:SYNTH violation as well. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another example of irrational editing (one of dozens). Some of the early content in this article was supported only by primary sources (e.g. "Critic C said that Judaism is blah, blah"). User JayJG (a cohort of user Avi) rightly pointed out that secondary sources were more appropriate since they ensure that academics/researches are discussing the criticism (in addition to the primary source critics). Based on that, sourcing for all criticisms was improved so it was supported by _secondary_ sources (e.g. "Scholar S described critic C who said blah blah"), which is beyond what WP requires, but due to the sensitive nature of this article, was a good thing to do, and should reduce edit-warring. But Nooooooo. Some editors now claim that the secondary sources are not satisfactory because they are not primary critics! And so it goes: round and round. The article is now in very poor condition, which is precisely how the deletionists like it. --Noleander (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Savant: yes, there is edit warring. What happened, in a nutshell, was: I attempted to improve this article to be somewhat similar in quality/coverage as Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, etc. I made gradual progress during March 2010, always explaining the proposed new content here on the Talk page first. In early April 2010, I was more or less finished, and then user Avi brought in user BusStop and Chesdovi, and the three have deleted the majority of the content. The content deleted was very notable, and heavily sourced with reliable academic sources. I tried to engage them in defining a scope of this article (see Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Consensus needed for scope of article). To be fair, BusStop did participate in conversation but his/her arguments did not make much sense. If any reasonable editor were to review this article's Talk page, and read the secondary sources that are used for the content, they would agree that the deleted content should be restored. It is sad that content is determined by whichever editor screams the loudest, or happens to spend more time lurking, ready to revert the slightest change they dislike. My plan is to let the previous RfC run for a month, then request mediation, then try for arbitration, or perhaps solicit input from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I've repeatedly invited the "deletionist" editors to improve the content by adding balancing information, so that readers would see the criticisms in context (e.g. "yes, several of Judaism's laws discriminate against non-Jews, but those laws are no longer enforced") but rather than take the time to research and write such balancing information, they find it simpler and faster to just delete the content. I've also invited the deletionists to propose an alternative scope of the article, but no consistent, sensible alternative has been proposed. The losers in all this are the readers of the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Avi did not "bring me in". Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This version,as a clarification. Silver seren^C 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren: Thank you. Yes, that version of this article is how it looked before the three deletionists went about their work. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we look at the article prior to Noleander's starting to add extraneous and improper out-of-scope material :) -- Avi (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, Noleander has been asked many times to give his clear criteria for what belongs in this article, as his actions indicate that any combination of the words "criticism" and "Jew" make the information appropriate (perhaps the previous is a slight exaggeration, but his actions do speak for themselves). He has turned this article into a meaningless laundry list of various criticisms that tangentially, if at all, relate to Judaism, including (hopefully the unintentional) antisemitic canard of conflating Judaism with Zionism (see New antisemitism). It is irrelevant how poorly written other "Criticism of..." articles are. On this article we have people, such as myself, who have spent decades and decades in the study of Jewish law and tradition, and we can separate wheat from chaff. The continued "pouring in" of criticisms that are not of Judaism as a religion, or misrepresentation of sources, is unacceptable, not to mention a violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines, and ad hominem representation of people as "deletionists" is both inappropriate and will not serve in any form of dispute resolution. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi: Does that mean you are willing to include the "Criticism of kosher slaughter" section :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that properly belongs in the article on Shechita, as it is a criticism of a specific act, not of Judaism as a religion. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Then can you give us a list of the subjects you feel should be included under this article umbrella? Once the subject headings are made, then sources and information can be filled in underneath them. Silver seren^C 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of criticisms

Here is a list of all the criticisms that were in the article at one time or another. I am not aware of any additional criticisms that have been proposed (one critiicsm was moved into Anti-Judaism and is not in this list):

All of the above criticisms ~~(perhaps with the exception of kosher slaughter)~~ are supported by numerous secondary sources. [Edit: items 17-19 added 27 May 2010]. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, almost everything that Noleander brought above is not a criticism of Judaism as a religion, but is a critique of either specific practices, which are not universal throughout the religion, or of people. Criticism of various practices properly belongs (and exists) in the articles on those practices; having a central article duplicating all of the information in its proper place only serves as a garbage magnet. Also, criticism levied by Reform and Conservative Judaism against Orthodoxy are firstly not criticisms of Judaism as a religion, that would be akin to the right foot criticizing the left ear. Secondly, the intra-religious criticisms themselves are handled in the articles about the branches of Judaism that seperated from traditional Judaism. Once again, redundant repetition of criticisms that are not even of the religion itself is not appropriate for this article. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a criticism of the religion per se, being that there are branches of the religion itself which deny the existence of G-d (see Beliefs and practices in Progressive Judaism#God in Jewish reform theology
Not a criticism of the religion per se, being that there are branches of the religion itself which deny the existence of G-d (see Beliefs and practices in Progressive Judaism#Scriptural teachings
That is is more a critique of the bible, not the religion, see Exodus 19:5–19:6, but it is currently in the article.
Where were they used to justify slavery in recent times, and by whom?
Currently in the article.
Firstly, unsupported. Secondly, a critique of individual people, not of the religion itself.
Firstly, Zionism <> Judaism. Secondly, a critique of individual people, not of the religion itself.
Not a criticism of the religion per se, being that there are branches of the religion itself which make no differentiation.
Not a criticism of the religion per se, but of a practice, which is discussed in the articles on that practice (see Niddah, Agunah, etc.) AND there are branches of the religion itself which make no differentiation.
Not a criticism of the religion per se but of a practice, especially as there are branches of the religion itself which make no differentiation.#Not a criticism of the religion, but of people.
Much of this is interpretation of ambiguous texts and is likely not mainstream opinion.
Not a criticism of the religion per se, as there are accepted branches of the religion that do not follow the traditions.
Not a criticism of the religion per se, as there are accepted branches of the religion that do not follow the traditions.
Not a criticism of the religion, but of one practice, which is discussed in the article about that practice (see Shechita).
Not a criticism of the religion, but of one practice, which is discussed in the article about that practice (see Brit Milah).

-- Avi (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Then can you make a list of subject headings not stated here that would be proper to use? Silver seren^C 04:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi: your suggestion that a criticism can be included only if it applies to all branches of Judaism is not reasonable. The fact that a criticism is limited to certain branches can be mentioned in the article, but that is no reason to omit a criticism. --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi, 1) if any "X of or relating to Judaism" topic requires unanimity among self-identified adherents of Judaism that X actually is (a significant) part of Judaism, there can be no such articles or topics at all. (Insert your preferred "Jews never agree about anything" cliché here.) That internal disagreement should be noted no one disputes. 2) I don't understand why "Avi and/or Bus stop think it is a 'major theme' of the religion" instead of just a "practice" et al. is a legitimate criterion for inclusion. Again, "notable groups think X is a notable element of Judaism" seems to me to be the appropriate criterion for inclusion in articles like this. Savant1984 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Savant1984. Avi: earlier you suggested that we define the scope of the article (rather than approach it bottom-up by listing various criticisms). There is a section above in this Talk page on that exact goal. Can you add a comment there suggesting what you think the scope should be; and, ideally, explain why your proposed scope includes some topics (e.g. ancient violence) yet excludes others. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The list given here is obviously not a list of criticisms of Judaism, for the simple reason that most of these beliefs are not even unique to Judaism. As examples of the topics listed above:

The God postulated by Judaism does not exist - this is the same God of other faiths, including (for example), Islam. Is this, then, a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the concept of God, and belongs in the God (or related) article.
Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God - these same stories are part of Christian belief, and often (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.
God did not single out Jews as the chosen people - these idea is part of Christian belief, and (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.
Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism, Judaism and slavery (or related) articles.
Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism (or related) articles.
Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles - Judaism has many thousands of "modern religious leaders", none of whom have any authority over any others. Many of these religious leaders disagree completely with the other religious leaders, despite them all practicing Judaism. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, this is actually a criticism of specific religious leaders, and belongs in the articles on those leaders.
Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating homosexuals from welcoming acceptance to strong disapproval; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in LGBT topics and Judaism.
Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating women; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in Jewish feminism/Gender and Judaism or related articles.
Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus - do they? Or do they not even refer to Jesus at all? There is considerable academic debate about this. Given the complete lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Yeshu.
Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered - Judaism's streams have widely different views on this; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Given the lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Shechita.
Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary - the vast majority of children who are ritually circumcised are Muslim, not Jewish. Is this then a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of Circumcision, and belongs in that (or related) articles.

The topics listed here are not about Judaism, but about various practices/beliefs/texts/laws that are not uniformly practiced/believed/followed within Judaism itself, and are often shared with much larger groups. Thus they are not "criticisms of Judaism", but criticisms of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws, and belong in the articles about these practices/beliefs/texts/laws. Indeed, taking all these disparate and unrelated topics, and ripping them from their context to dump them in this article is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV (because they are out of the context of their actual subjects) and WP:NOR (because they are randomly jumbled together here). No-one is saying that "Judaism", or any one of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws cannot be criticized; rather, they are insisting that this be done in a way that complies with policy - i.e., in the relevant articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You said it more eloquently than I did, Jay. To reiterate, every one of the discussions listed by Noleander does have a place in the encyclopedia, in their respective articles. Moreover, they are all extant, to the best of my knowledge, in their respective articles. Collecting disparate issues that are barely tangentially related through the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish is synthesizing a relationship and a violation of wiki's policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well stated, Jay. Thanks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

See below at #Support for Jay's comment, cited by Avi at AFD where other criticism articles already forbid many of the additions suggested above, and we should continue the conversation below. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zionism

Re Chesdovi's deletion of Zionist material because "Zionism is not ~~Judaism~~ a Jewish precept": Zionism is an integral tenant of Judaism according to many notable groups, including the Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox rabbinical associations and congregational unions (and is therefore very much notable. Why do you think that that's not relevant in determining the appropriate content of this article?

We must not mix the national aspirations of Jewish people and the Jewish religion itself. Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I respect that you think that, but that's certainly not the view of the groups I just mentioned. Doesn't WP:NPOV apply here? Savant1984 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The views of zionistic Jews and Christians may be based on biblical passages, but the idea of modern Jewish rule is not provided for in Jewish law. Zionism was invented by secular people. Israel is a secular state. If any criticism is to be directed at Zionist schemes, it is to those zionists who use "religion" to justify their aims or those that would criticise the religion because of them. I do not believe that Jews belonging to any of the groups you mention support the State of Israel in a religious context. I appreciate that the fusion of Judaism and Zionism is blurred and remains a hotly debated subject. As far I know, Zionism is a secular issue, and “Religious” Zionists are merely religious ones! (My rabbi told me “Religious” Zionism is an oxymoron). Chesdovi (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I recognise and respect that you think that, but at Wikipedia we have to reflect all major POVs. That Zionism is a precept of Judaism is a major notable POV, whether we agree with it or not. Savant1984 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Zionsim is not a "Jewish precept" or "integral tenant"!!! These groups support Zionsim not because of its Judaism aspect, but becasue of the national and cultural aspect, which is divorced from Judaism. I will nevertheless look the sources up to see exactly what the say. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, again, Chesdovi, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying notable groups disagree with you. Here's one obvious example: the most recent American Reform platform, in the "Israel" section: http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=44&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656 Savant1984 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This has basically been the entire debate. Deleting editors are ignoring the sources and making decision entirely based on their understanding of Judaism. It is trivially original research, and it has only been allowed because of wiki politics. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to my belated response, please forgive me. This statement from 1999 can hardley be used to support the 1948 Palestinain Exodus. (At that stage in time Reform had anti-zionst sentiments, I think). Besides, I have not had a chance to think about the implications of that source, (as well as finding this: "We strongly believe in the centrality of Israel in Jewish life", a bit closer to home!) Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi: Please review Religious Zionism article. Also, the questions you are raising were already discussed earlier in the Talk page. Please review that earlier discussion. --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Savant, your point is at most a reason to bring a Criticism of Zionism, not of Judaism. If there are Christian and Jewish Zionists whom, as you say, use biblical texts to support their position, the criticism is of those Zionists and their interpretations; not of Judaism, which presaged the Zionist movement by approximately 3000 years. Again, an example of a potential violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE which underscores the need for careful oversight and analysis of any material. -- Avi (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Savant1984: I do not yet have a response for the Reform link, but please see Criticism of Islamism, the Islamic equivalent of what your getting at regarding Zionism, Gush Emunim, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "Land ownership conflicts in Middle East" under disscussion

Rubenberg, Cheryl (2003)

Rubenberg, Cheryl (2003). The Palestinians: in search of a just peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 162. ISBN 1588262251.

This source describes how Gush Emunim “developed a philosophy” relying on biblical literalism. Why is this considered a criticism of Judaism? Is it because passages from the bible have been interpreted by people to forward their own aims of land ownership? The bible does not prescribe this. It would be like people using Henry V (play) as reason to invade France in 2010. Should the actions of such people who would use this text to invade and conquer France be considered a criticism of Shakespeare’s text? Anyway, there is no criticism of Judaism here, only settlers. Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You assert that the Bible does not prescribe this. Many of the settlers assert that the Bible (and Judaism) does prescribe this. Whether Judaism actually requires Zionism/settlements/whatever is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia can only record what notable groups assert. Savant1984 (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Although the source criticises them for their assertions, not the Bible or Judasim. Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Their assertions as to what Judaism commands. That's what's relevant, I think. Savant1984 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So that criticism would belong at Criticism of Gush Emunim, surley? The source does not state: "Jewish religious texts endorse the expropriation of land in Palestine, as seen by the Gush Emunim faction, whose vigilante behaviour is condoned in Judaism." Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is indicative of the problems with the article. There is no end to this, and it is never resolvable, because "criticism of Judaism" is not a wp:notable topic for an article. There is little material, in the way of sources, available on "criticism of Judaism." Sure, there are tons of references to Judaism, some of which are inevitably going to be negative, but it often requires the application of wp:synthesis to arrive at material that supports the contention of the article, and that of course is a violation of an important Wiki policy. Disclosure: I don't have access to the source so I don't know the actual wording used. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many primary sources that are critical of Judaism, including medieval disputations, Christian polemics, Islamic polemics, some Christian fundamentalists, some secular/activist Jews (e.g. Israel Shahak), and New Atheists. And, of course, there is tons of internal inter-branch criticism, such as all the late 19th century polemics written by the founders of the Reform Movement (against traditional Judaism). Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" is a fairly modern, broad book on this article's topic. And all of these primary sources were mentioned in the scholarly secondary sources that were cited in the content you and Avi deleted. --Noleander (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response at Analysis of sources for section “Discrimination against non-Jews”. Chesdovi (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shahak is a chemist, not a notable critic of religion. That is like quoting the Ayatollah Khameini as a notable source on botany. This is a good example of the abuse and violations of wikipedia policies this article creates without careful oversight of the material. -- Avi (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not according to his article. The article says that he is quite the religious activist. If it is your personal opinion that you are going by, that wouldn't matter in the context that sources verify that he is such an activist. Silver seren^C 03:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Activist <> notable critic. Al Sharpton is also a religious activist; he is not a notable critic of religion. Meir Kahane was also a religious activist; he is not a notable critic of religion. Muqtada al-Sadr is also a religious activist; he is not a notable critic of religion, etc. -- Avi (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Your opinion has been stated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that his article states "In 1994 he published Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, in 1997 he published Open Secrets: Israel's Nuclear and Foreign Policies, and in 1999 he published Jewish Fundamentalism In Israel, co-authored with Norton Mezvinsky. In the introduction to the last book, Mezvinsky and Shahak explained that, "We realize that by criticizing Jewish fundamentalism we are criticizing a part of the past that we love. We wish that members of every human grouping would criticize their own past, even before criticizing others"", which clearly shows that he is a critic of religion. Silver seren^C 03:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So is the drunkard preaching eschatology on the street corner. He is not a notable critic of religion, which is what I said before. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for Jay's comment, cited by Avi at AFD

I have noticed the following at Criticism of Islam:

The article Criticism of Islam is meant for addressing criticism that is specific to Islam. Criticism of religion in general, or criticism that applies to all monotheistic religions, such as arguments against the existence of God, should be dealt with elsewhere.

And after seeing the excellent argument identifying the issues in this article, I propose to remove the relevant passages from this article. Chesdovi (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Marokwitz (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because this page is so long, I am reposting Jay's analysis below -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) :

#The God postulated by Judaism does not exist - this is the same God of other faiths, including (for example), Islam. Is this, then, a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the concept of God, and belongs in the God (or related) article.
Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God - these same stories are part of Christian belief, and often (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.

God did not single out Jews as the chosen people - these idea is part of Christian belief, and (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.

Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism, Judaism and slavery (or related) articles.

Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism (or related) articles.

Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles - Judaism has many thousands of "modern religious leaders", none of whom have any authority over any others. Many of these religious leaders disagree completely with the other religious leaders, despite them all practicing Judaism. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, this is actually a criticism of specific religious leaders, and belongs in the articles on those leaders.

Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating homosexuals from welcoming acceptance to strong disapproval; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in LGBT topics and Judaism.

Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating women; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in Jewish feminism/Gender and Judaism or related articles.

Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus - do they? Or do they not even refer to Jesus at all? There is considerable academic debate about this. Given the complete lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Yeshu.

Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered - Judaism's streams have widely different views on this; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Given the lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Shechita.

Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary - the vast majority of children who are ritually circumcised are Muslim, not Jewish. Is this then a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of Circumcision, and belongs in that (or related) articles.
The topics listed here are not about Judaism, but about various practices/beliefs/texts/laws that are not uniformly practiced/believed/followed within Judaism itself, and are often shared with much larger groups. Thus they are not "criticisms of Judaism", but criticisms of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws, and belong in the articles about these practices/beliefs/texts/laws. Indeed, taking all these disparate and unrelated topics, and ripping them from their context to dump them in this article is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV (because they are out of the context of their actual subjects) and WP:NOR (because they are randomly jumbled together here). No-one is saying that "Judaism", or any one of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws cannot be criticized; rather, they are insisting that this be done in a way that complies with policy - i.e., in the relevant articles.
— Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These points can all be addressed:

(1) Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God. All religions which believe in a prophets, supposed past events, and God have been criticised for these beliefs. Criticisms of various historical figures, historical events, and of the concept of God is addressed on other criticism articles of other religions too.

(2) God did not single out Jews as the chosen people. This is a legitmate criticism. Judaism teaches that they are God's chosen people. Many view the idea of the Jews being a chosen people as racist. The Jewish teaching is that the Hebrews are a chosen people. This is racist as it postulates that the Hebrew race is a chosen race and therefore superior. Christians and Muslims don't view themselves as being a chosen people, merely that their religion saves them, and this is not tied being of any race.

(3) Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times). It is true these texts were used to justify Transatlantic slavery. These texts are shared by both the Christians and the Jews, and therefore both are equally criticised for them.

(4) Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context). Such teachings as An eye for an eye and other mentions of God instructing the Jews to destroy their enemies are viewed by many as inciting violence and genocide. Again, these texts are shared by both the Christians and the Jews and therefore both are equally criticised for them.

(5) Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles. Some Jewish ultra-Orthodox religious leaders in Israel have endorsed violence against those who do not adhere to strict Jewish religious rules. All religions have a minority of people teaching extremist views and all relgions are criticised for this.

(6) Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly. No religion has a monolithic view on homosexuality. Christianity is a great example of this. Christianity more so than any other major religion has many denominations with a range of differing views. Jewish religious teachings range from acceptance of homosexuality to condemnation of it, depending on demonination. This is the same for Christianity and many other religions and those religions are criticised equally for those views.

(7) Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities. Once again, just as Judaism has a range of views on this topic depending on demonination, so do other religions. These views range from claiming women are equal to claiming women are inferior. Other religions are criticised equally for their views on this topic too.

(8) Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus. On this one they don't. Some Jews have criticised Jesus but Judaism hasn't.

(9) Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered. Judaism has a range of views on this topic, as do other religions with similar requirements to slaughter animals, such as Islam. Christianity doesn't require religious slaughter of animals. Many view religious requirements to slaughter animals as cruel towards animals, unnecessary and unacceptable in modern society. All religions which have denominations which require religious slaughter of animals are equally criticised.

(10) Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary. The majority of circumcisions are carried out by Muslims, however both Judaism and Islam require circumcision as a rite of passage and both are equally criticised for this as many consider circumcision to be cruel towards children and unnecessary, just as religious laws requiring animal slaughter are. Space25689 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — Why, for instance, would there be any commentary on dietary laws and cruelty to animals, when there are separate articles treating this, and in which that subject is put into a larger context? Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to forget:

And I can go on and on. -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Change name of article

Seriously, I am a Reform Jew and would like to ask if those of you who seriously want to keep this ridiculous libelous article to change the name of it? You mention things like divorce, treatment of women, and homosexuality when those apply not to my brand of Judaism and its insulting. You want to criticize Judaism then criticize ONLY those things common across all spectrums because this article is currently "Criticism of Judaism", you want to criticize just one branch then change the name of the entire article.Camelbinky (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read the Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity articles to see just how mild this article is in it criticisms by comparision to some, such as those I stated. Space25689 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, your point has been already addressed by Jay, with no response from the "preservationists". Chesdovi (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You do know Christianity, Islam and others are as diverse as Judiasm in the sense that different denominations have somewhat differing teachings? Space25689 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Space, Violations in other articles are not excuses for propagating them through out the wikipedia project. You are indirectly relying on the Perfect solution fallacy, in that if we fix this article, the others will still be broken; that is no reason not to correct this article. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article needs not to be fixed. Covering criticisms of a concept is a legitimate part of an encyclopaedia. I'm arguing that none of the criticism articles be deleted. I don't see you arguing that all criticism articles be deleted as a fix, just the Judaism one. Space25689 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And so? I am interested in correcting this article. Please review the is-ought fallacy. -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue of criticisms being applicable to only one branch is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed. Some criticisms apply to all branches, some to 1 or 2. Solutions to that could include:

Listing all criticisms in the article as "peer" sections, and within each section, identifying which branches it applies to. This is more-or-less how the article is now. The advantage of this approach is that it avoids repetition when a criticism applies to two branches (e.g. Conservative and Orthodox).
Breaking the article into top-level subsections such as "general criticisms" "criticisms specific to traditional/orthodox", "criticisms specific to reform", "criticisms specific to conservative", etc,.
Follow the pattern set by Criticism of Conservative Judaism and create a new article Criticism of orthodox/traditional Judaism. This article would remain as a top-level overview article that contains criticisms applicable to all branches, and a WP:Summary Style summary of the subsidiary articles.

Noleander (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--

Arguments against the concept of the article can be disregarded. The community has spoken at the AFD. As for criticisms of specific branches, this could be trivially fixed by explaining which branches a specific criticism is directed at, either through section header or an opening paragraph. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted

This article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not WP:NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions but not on others. Either there are criticism articles on all religions or no criticism articles on any religions with all criticism of religion as a whole covered in the Criticism of religion article. That is a decision for all editors to come to in consensus. Please do not promote the deletion of articles merely on content dispute. That is infantile and is not constructive work on Wikipedia. Content in these articles needs to be determined by consensus amongst editors on the talk page, not edit warring. Administrators should be vigilant over articles on controversial issues and keep a firm but neutral. Space25689 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that on the AfD page if you wish. Also, please remembers that mistakes in some articles on wikipedia do not justify propagation of those errors on other articles. And if other denominations do not have as an informed or active editor base, that does not mean that violations can be ignored. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I shall. My point is content dispute is no reason to delete an article and there cannot be criticism articles on some religions while no criticism articles on others. Space25689 (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll just get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown at you for that one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I can't voice my opinion on the AfD page because the discussion has since closed, so here will have to make do for anyone voicing opinion on the matter. Space25689 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination) -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If this article is deleted then I'll propose the deletion of the Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism articles too, to maintain WP:NPOV because every would be reason for deleting this article also applies to those articles. Every accusation of original research and discrimination equally applies to those articles too. There seems to be some notion here that Judaism, and Judaism alone should be bereft of criticism. Space25689 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't going anywhere. The votes are now solidly against deletion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — I believe WP:NPOV is not applicable across articles. NPOV operates within an individual article. Can you show me language indicating that Wikipedia's policy of NPOV is applicable in the way that you are suggesting? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that one article must "balance out" another article, in the sense that the principle of NPOV has as its aim the achieving of neutrality within an article. But I do not believe that NPOV has applicability across articles as you seem to suggest, but please show me language indicating that if you can find such language. Bus stop (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to every article on Wikipedia and to every subject on Wikipedia, including religion. It is not NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions while not on others. It is not NPOV to censor aspects of any given subject on Wikipedia, including criticisms of any particular religion. Space25689 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This means that all articles and encyclopaedic content, including various subjects such as religion, are beholden to NPOV, and that all significant views, which includes criticism are allowed. Space25689 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — Yes, that is policy that you are quoting, but where does that quote say anything about one article's existence balancing out another article's existence? Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In the fact that all encyclopaedic content must be NPOV, which includes subjects such as religion. The subject of religion on Wikipedia cannot be NPOV if certain religions are censored for criticism. Space25689 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — it says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view…" It says nothing (and it implies nothing) about separate articles balancing one another out. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV clears states all articles and all encyclopaedic content must be neutral. All content on Wikipedia, including the subjects it covers, such as religion, must be neutral and balanced. This cannot be the case if one religion is devoid of criticism while the others are not, which would be the case if there were no "Criticism of Judaism" article while there were such criticism articles on other religions. Space25689 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — the existence of one article does not create the requirement for the existence of another article. No Wikipedia policy asserts this, including WP:NPOV, which has its applicability within articles, not between articles. Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not just cover individual articles. It covers all content on Wikipedia. All content on Wikipedia, not just individual articles, must be neutral. This includes all content on subjects such as religion. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. There is no denying NPOV covers all content on Wikipedia, not just individual articles, and that all significant views, including criticisms are allowed. Space25689 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Space25689 — the entire project (the encyclopedia itself) may or may not be "balanced." At WP:BIAS some express the opinion that Wikipedia suffers from "systemic bias." But the fundamental principles of Wikipedia policy are not aimed at achieving "balance," or "neutrality," in the project as a whole. They are aimed at creating good articles. WP:NPOV is one of those fundamental principles. It has as its aim the task of ensuring that each article projects a view that is deemed neutral. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV states there must be neutrality on all articles and across all content on Wikipedia. Religion is content on Wikipedia, which must be neutral. It's as simple as that. NPOV does not apply only to within articles, but to all content across Wikipedia. Bias and imbalance are not promoted or tolerated across content on Wikipedia as you imply. WP:Bias states there is bias on Wikipedia, but that such bias is wrong and not desirable. You are implying bias can be acceptable or desirable. Space25689 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Space25689 — I merely pointed out the WP:BIAS page because it is an attempt to counter bias project-wide. No, I don't endorse bias. I was contrasting WP:BIAS to WP:NPOV, which addresses individual articles. It (WP:NPOV) doesn't address the project as a whole. You were invoking WP:NPOV as a reason for not deleting the "Criticism of Judaism" article, were you not? But you are misapplying WP:NOPV in that argument. WP:NPOV has applicability within articles. It is a principle attempting to assure that articles express a balanced view. Aside from WP:BIAS, I am not aware of any other pages on Wikipedia that address the project as a whole concerning "balance" project-wide. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not applicable only to within articles. That is not what NPOV states. NPOV states all articles and other encyclopaedic content must be neutral. The all articles part means all articles must be written in a neutral manner. The other encyclopaedic content part means encyclopaedic content across Wikipedia must be neutral. NPOV applies to more than just within articles, it applies to encyclopaedic content across Wikipedia. A subject such as religions or a religion is content, which must be neutral. Content on religion cannot be neutral on Wikipedia if some religions are criticised while others are not. Space25689 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But nowhere does WP:NPOV even begin to suggest that the existence of "Article A" implies that "Article B" must exist. Neither NPOV nor any other Wikipedia policy implies anything like that. Or if you know of a policy that suggests that bring it to our attention. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a precedent that "Criticism of" articles are acceptable. It is widely practiced on Wikipedia. The question you have to answer is why Judaism is the only religion where a "Criticism of" article would be inappropriate. For all your posturing and thousands of words typed, you've repeatedly failed to come up with any reason. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Each article is evaluated independently. It is deemed by many that the article "Criticism of Judaism" should be deleted. The existence of another article does not imply this article should exist. What you are calling "Criticism of…" articles are merely articles beginning with the same two words. That says surprisingly little about those articles you are clumping together. And Wikipedia has no formalized system for linking those articles. They are merely a bunch of articles beginning with the same two words.

One solution to the present impasse is to reduce an article such as this to a pure list, linking to articles that cover the topics that are deemed to be legitimate "criticism of Judaism." That would eliminate much of the disagreement at this article. Such a step would have the effect of "decentralizing" this article. I think that would be a plus. Many of these articles already exist; others could be written as stubs. Someone seeking to read about the "criticism of Judaism" could link to all the separate topics that would be listed here.

The argument in support of "keeping" this article has been that it is an important research tool. The argument has been that this article brings together important "criticism" in one place. The argument has been that this article enhances usability of the encyclopedia for those seeking to find information on "criticism of Judaism" in one place. I think that a list would satisfy the requirements of those wishing to "keep" the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted in response to Space25689's first comment (This article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not WP:NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions but not on others.) that Criticism of Mormonism and Criticism of Hinduism have both been nominated for deletion too. Chesdovi (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some points here which are central to this debate and appear not yet to have been answered by the proponents for deleting this article which they need to answer:

(1) For what reasons should the Criticism of Judaism article be deleted?

(2) Why do those reasons not equally apply to deleting many other important but controversial articles on Wikipedia, including other criticism of religions articles?

(3) How can Wikipedia remain encyclopaedic and neutral if important but controversial articles are deleted and criticism of a particular major religion is censored?

Many opposing the deletion of this article would like these answered as they are central to this debate for opponents. Space25689 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Big, big sigh. Oh come on Space25689! How many times does Avi need to repeat himself. All your concerns have been addressed umteen times. Have you actually read his posts? Doesn't seem like it. Chesdovi (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well he hasn't addressed them of late. Why don't you and others actually answer these questions once in a while. It might get me and others to understand your point. Space25689 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would do as Noleander suggested to me. Review what has already been discussed above. (If you have the mental stamina). Why waste time asking busy people to rewrite and rewrite and rewrite their arguments? Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been addressing them daily, but I guess you have not been paying attention. Oh well, just for you:

Two reasons
1. Because there is no valid, clear, and impartial set of criteria for inclusion.
2. Because everything listed so far by Noleander and others either has its own article or is more fully addressed in other articles.
The reasons apply equally. A number of us are choosing to focus on this article now.
As mentioned about a dozen times, every one of the criticisms is already on wikipedia, either in their own articles (such as Biblical criticism or Gender and Judaism) or in proper parent articles (such as Shechita and Brit Milah).

-- Avi (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Noleander has explicitly spelled out what should be included. Dismissing this as "invalid" is not a response.
2. Having an article does not excuse omitting material. That's what "See also" and "Main article" tags are for.
Criticism articles are widely accepted on Wikipedia, and this article is no exception.

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Jay and I have shown the inappropriateness of each and every one of the 16, QED.
2. Having an article does not excuse adding inappropriate material, please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH, etc.

-- Avi (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are very convinced by your argument. Anyway, I asked you to provide an example of the alleged violations. You failed to provide any, only complaining about the concept of the article, as usual. Now that it has been decided that the article will stay, where are these violations? Do you know of any at all? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

/sigh On this page alone Jay and I show why the items listed by Noleander are inappropriate. Chesdovi, I, Bus stop, JPgordon, etc. have been demonstrating the issues for months now. We have an archive, please use it. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You would,

, of course. Which is why the fact that your questions have already been answered is irrelevant to you. When you are interested in talking with other editors instead of at other editors, please let us know

. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing to archives that by your admission cover months is not discussion. I've seen this POV pushing method before when editors tried to excuse tags with discussions that had taken place months ago and had since been resolved. Your bad faith is so obvious it's funny. Ha ha. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the argument raised above by Chesdovi about the Criticism of Mormonism and Criticism of Hinduism AfD's, well we can use those too. They both ended in Keep and Speedy Keep, respectively, so it is clear that community consensus holds that Criticism articles are notable (if well sourced, ect, ect.). Silver seren^C 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was just highlighting that the sentiements of some people here who say "why is just Judasim is being singled out and nominated for deletion - why not all the others" are unfounded. And that the Judaism page has not been the only one targeted for deletion by a Jewish Cabal. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for counter-proposal on scope of article

I proposed a scope of this article, above in Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Consensus needed for scope of article. It seems like a sensible scope, similar to that used by other "Criticism of someReligion" articles. I know that a few editors want this article reduced significantly, but I do not yet understand what their (Avi, Chesdovi, BusStop) proposed scope is. In other words: given that this article is going to exist, what do you (Avi, et al) think its scope should be? In addition to defining the scope, could you illustrate your proposed scope by explaining why 2 or 3 criticisms fit within the scope (and hence should be in the article) and a couple of criticisms that would be excluded. There is a list of candidate criticisms at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#List of criticisms. Noleander (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--

I believe you are missing the point, Noleander. Part of the problem is that we have shown how each and every one of the 16 items you listed above does not belong. We are waiting for you to provide an example of something that actually does belong in the article. Our position is that the actual scope of this article is tiny, unless we are willing to violate POV and put everything and the kitchen sink in, in which case, we might as well add the fifty thousand or so volumes of legal Jewish responsa printed in the past 200 years, which has more legal criticism than any other body of work I know of. What may be appropriate, and I am still thinking about it, is something like a disambiguation page, where the existing articles are listed. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do it, add it all, in summary format. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Avi: I concur that a WP:Summary Style approach may be acceptable, where the details about the criticisms are located in other articles, and this article has WP:Summary Style summary content for each criticism (with explanation of how they may only be applicable to 1 or 2 branches). However, if a criticism is not yet covered in another article, some detail may be required here. Noleander (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--

Disambiguation would be better, because it would maintain each discussion on the page where it belongs and it allows us to prevent the misrepresentation that many of these are criticisms of Judaism, when they are actually criticisms of the Bible, the Quran, Christian Zionists, etc. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not concur with a disambiguation page that simply lists links. For example, look at Criticism of Christianity and imagine that replaced with just a handful of links: not a good result. I think WP:Summary Style is a good compromise: a middle ground between a full-blown article and a disambiguation/link page. Noleander (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--

Noleander — this article should serve as nothing more than a table of contents, or an index. It should be a jumping off place to other articles. The primary argument that has been made in support of this article is that it is a convenient spot for anyone wishing to research the criticisms of Judaism. A pure list with links to full fledged articles would satisfy that need. Quality would also be preserved — material would be found in larger context. Bus stop (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Long standing consensus in other articles of this type also applies here. And it is long standing consensus that the article should be written in a summary style. That is rather similar to an index as it is, but also gives the reader some compiled information about the subject so that, if they merely want to know about the criticisms without actually having to read other articles to do so, they can get more than enough general information in this article for that purpose. Silver seren^C 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no recognized "criticism of" style of article-writing. "Long standing consensus" would in this instance be applicable to an individual article. Editorial decisions can be made at this article that are not in parallel with style choices made at other articles.

You say that the reader needs to be given "compiled information" but that is accomplished with the click of a link. All that is necessary is the identifying of that link. This is preferable because at the destination of that link will be found a full-fledged article in which will be presented the "criticism" in context.

There is no simple way of conveying information. It requires the reader to read. This article can enhance usability by placing all links to articles containing "criticisms" on one page, neatly labeled. But there is no need for a page such as this to attempt to duplicate, even in an abbreviated form, that which is to be found at the end of a click. Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that there is no point in summary style ever being used in an article? Because it seems to me that summary style is the way of telling readers what the full article on the subject is about. Having it just being a link in the list tells them close to nothing about what it is they're clicking into, when they may be looking for something specific. A short paragraph of summary style tells them what the related articles are about so they know what they want to read, instead of having to check every single article in a list. Silver seren^C 01:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

From WP:Disambiguation: "disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." These topics would not have the same title. Disambiguation is objectively wrong. You're not going to turn an article into a disambig page after failing to get consensus at AFD. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This section's content diverged from its original purpose, so I'm re-titling the section to accurately reflect the content.

As for the proposal to re-cast this article as a disambiguation page (consisting solely of links): the answer is "no". Such an article would be entitled "List of criticisms of Judaism" (see WP:List guideline). Anyone is free to create such an article. However, this article is titled "Criticsm of Judaism" and it is most definitely not a list article. In the spirit of compromise, I think a WP:Summary style approach to this article would be okay. Noleander (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)--