Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Possible topics for next consensus-building

Okay, it sounds like we may be moving towards some consensus on those high-level points above, although we should wait a few days for Avi et al to return, and to see if any editors have any heartburn with the above points. If we do get consensus on those high-level points, we can then turn our attention to some more detailed issues. From reviewing the historical conversations in this Talk page, it appears that the following topics are still unresolved:

1) What are the criteria/tests to determine which criticisms are included?

1a) Subject matter: criticisms of doctrines? practices? texts? laws? actions of leaders?

1ai) If "criticism of texts" is included: which texts: Tanakh? Talmud? Tosefta? Sefer Hamitzvot?

What if a minor text is mentioned by critic incidental to a broader criticism?

1b) Include/exclude antisemetic canards?

1c) Significance/gravitas threshold: must have secondary sources? must the primary sources be notable?

1ci) Are secondary sources required? which: academic? rebuttals? journalists? biographers? religious leaders? major press?

1cii) Dont have any significance/gravitas threshold?

1ciii) Critics themselves: must they be notable people? Must they be experts in Judaism?

2) Summary style format: What if a "topic specific" article does not yet exist? Should it be created? or should we just put all detail into this article? Or should we find the most similar article and add a new section into it?

3) Should critics be listed in the "see also" list of links at bottom of article?

4) How handle criticisms that are only applicable to some branches (but not all branches) of Judaism?

4a) What is relationship between this article and Criticism of Conservative Judaism article?

5) Clarify distinction with Anti-Judaism article? (e.g. former "criticism from Christianity" content)

6) How deal with criticisms that are also applicable to other religions (e.g. "God does not exist", "women treated unfairly", etc)?

I don't present this list as "here is an exhaustive the topics" but rather as: "It would be helpful if we could get an organized list, and here is a starting point". All of the above issues have been raised in the Talk pages in the past, so I'm not inventing new issues. If other editors want to help refine or improve the above topic list, go right ahead and directly edit the list. If possible, use strike-outs <s> and </s> to keep old text. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but let's also be sensitive to the fact that some editors are off-site for a moment, and let's give them ample opportunity to be heard. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

NOR noticeboard issue: "Tests for inclusion"

Posted at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Inclusion_.27test.22_at_Criticism_of_Judaism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury: I hope you dont mind, but I put a subsection header above your comment because it looks like it is focusing only on item (1) of the list of issues above, not the full list, correct?. Item (1cii) was intended to represent the view of some editors that "no test is needed", but maybe the wording could be clarified. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand WP:OR, any decision making we make that is not supported by sources is original research. Our discussions should be limited to whether or not a topic has received weight, whether or not the sources use something as a criticism of Judaism, etc. Our test is already determined, it is whether or not there is enough support among the sources to justify its inclusion in the article. Reading through your test's list, I see a number of things that include decision making not supported by sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the list of issues immediately above, in particular issue (1), is simply my mortal attempt to capture the open issues from this Talk page. I did not intend to endorse any particular outcome. Regarding issue (1) "what criticisms are included?" I believe that editors have proposed several resolutions, including:

• Any and all criticisms, made by any critic
• Limit criticisms to those made by notable people/groups
• Limit criticisms to those made by theologians or experts in Judaism
• Limit criticisms to those that are documented/analyzed by persons other than critics (i.e. secondary sources)
• Limit criticisms to "significant" or "notable" criticisms.
• Dont establish any special criteria for this article: rely on standard WP policies

I think a discussion of this issue should wait a few days for Avi et al to return. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That last point really isn't up for debate. So if the rest of the list would contradict standard Wiki policies, they should be disgarded. We should include any and all criticisms made or explained by reliable sources that have recieved significant weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what Noleander says here is very fair, and I don't see any agenda here of going outside of policy. Indeed, spelling it out this clearly is helpful in seeing that, indeed, we need to stick to policy. And as I commented at the NOR discussion, although there may well be a few editors who will want to substitute their personal tastes in place of what secondary sources say, it is important that consensus here go against them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what we're trying to formulate here if we know exactly what the "test" is supposed to be. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe we are trying to formalize any kind of rigid test, but rather we are trying to come to some consensus as to the scope of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

God I'm starting to hate that phrase. The *gag* scope of the article is what the sources say it is. There, problem solved. Next topic. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As editors, we examine sources and choose scope of any article we edit. No article contains everything--someone has always made a choice to include or exclude a source, a phrase, a word, even punctuation. Policies guide our discussion and actions, but we are the ones making choices. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Excluding or including content despite sources or lack thereof is much different that the wording of paraphrasing or punctuation. And we don't get to make choices about what is appropriate. The sources do. That's what WP:OR is about. The sources say it. We repeat it with respect to its weight. Anything else is a violation of policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for consensus

The most important unresolved issue on this article is "what is the scope of the article?", in other words "what guidelines determine whether a given topic belongs or doesn't belong in this article (vs other articles)?" It looks list most interested editors are back from wiki-break, so it is a good time to resume the discussion. A proposed scope is: This article contains negative criticisms of Judaism's doctrines, texts, rules, and laws; the criticisms must be documented by a secondary source (other than the critic); there is no requirement that the critic be an expert in Judaism; and purposely false statements about Judaism designed to promote bigotry are excluded. The purpose of this proposal is not to establish a special WP policy for this article - of course, this article is subject to the standard, existing WP policies. Instead the purpose is to have a single discussion on the same 3 or 4 questions that keep arising over and over again: Must critics be experts in Judaism? Must a criticism be documented by a 2ndary source? Can antisemitic canards be included? Should positive criticisms be included? If we could get consensus on these issues, it will help reduce the repetitive discussions. Does that sound good? --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the intention of the part you put in italics, but (see also: herding cats) I'm going to take issue with the idea of having such a mission statement, about which some editors will endlessly argue now, and endlessly try to game later. Instead, I'd like to answer your very useful list of questions:

1. Must critics be experts in Judaism? What applies is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Expertise in either Judaism or in criticism of religion should be an expectation for anything that will be covered in depth, but should not be a barrier to inclusion at all.
2. Must a criticism be documented by a 2ndary source? YES, YES, YES! For me, that's the begin-all and end-all for what we include or exclude. It trumps what you have in italics above.
3. Can antisemitic canards be included? Only briefly, in summary style, and clearly identified as what they are.
4. Should positive criticisms be included? Yes. Think of the page as being as much about "Critical analysis of Judaism" as it is about "Criticism". Given that such material has the potential to make this page overly long, we should primarily use the approach of following every (negative) criticism with a rebuttal from scholarly sources, rather than having a separate section on praise.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with all your points - with the exception of antisemitic canards (If we end up having those, I think they should be relegated to a minor section at the bottom of the article). --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By "only briefly", that's really what I meant. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this debate for some time as being a more-or-less totally unmanageable mess. I just want to come out again and say that Noelander's positions on these issues seems to me to be transparently what's required by Wikipedia policy and common sense. While I'm sure other editors are not intending it, I simply cannot see the restrictions on scope and content required by so many of them as amounting to anything other than the restriction of material critical of Judaism, and that's just not WP:NPOV. "Editor X doesn't think that the criticised element is 'major enough' or that 'source Y is significant enough'" simply cannot serve as a basis for purging notable criticisms of notable elements of Judaism. Savant1984 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How handle multiple branches?

I believe there is one more large issue that still has not been discussed in detail: how to handle criticisms that apply to only a few branches of Judaism? In this Talk page, Ive seen various suggestions on how to handle various branches, such as:

1)Have a distinct article for each branch (e.g. Criticism of Conservative Judaism)

2)Only one article, Criticism of Judaism

2a) Break this article into subsections based on branch: Orthodox / Conservative / All / Reform, etc

2b) In each section: identify which branches the criticism applies to (e.g. "... this applies only to Orthodox and Conservative branches").

In any case, it would be nice to have an idea of how this article relates to the existing article Criticism of Conservative Judaism. Regarding the approaches listed above (1, 2a, 2b), I propose (2b), for the practical reason that most criticisms apply to 2 or more branches, so that makes (1) or (2a) impractical. For some relevant articles, see:

• Criticism of Christianity vs Criticism of Catholicism
• Criticism of Judaism vs Criticism of Conservative Judaism
• Jewish schisms
• Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Hassidism, Karaite Judaism, Orthodox Judaism.

Any comments? --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I like 2b, in that it would be easy in the text of the section to say "X criticizes Reformed Judaism for Y", and as you say, 1 and 2a are not practical. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree with the above, that 2b is the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change proposal

Due to this discussion over at Article Titles (where I might mention that Bus stop is still trying to get this article deleted rather than going through the proper channels), it raised a good question and option for changing the title of this article to something less negative. One of the prevailing views there is "Critical Analysis of Judaism"would be a good compromise. It means almost exactly the same thing, but gives a clearer view on what the article is about. Thoughts on this? Silverseren^C 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Noleander and Silverseren, below, I'm moving to neutral for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as a random counterproposal "Academic views on Judaism" sounds like a better description of the intended content of the article. "Critical analysis" again runs into the foggy question of what doth it mean. SDY (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly support. "Criticism" may be correct in an academic sense, but most of the people who read Wikipedia aren't academics and would take this article by the common definition of criticism, which is substantially different. Using "Criticism" by its academic sense is simply a function of bad writing; most users will misunderstand the intent of the article. The title of this article might not be understood by all, but it will be misunderstood by many, and that is unacceptable. SDY (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Support --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea -- not just here, but many other cultural criticism articles. "Criticism" to most people means "whatever negative thing someone somewhere had said", as opposed to scholarly critical analysis. It will reduce the article to mostly boring material, since critical analysis (as opposed to common yahooism) is generally quite complex and requires more than a basic understanding of the topic at hand. A rename like this will help get rid of the coatracks of complaints these articles often become. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Where are the sources to support such a change? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

...you...don't need sources to change the name of an article. O_o I mean, I guess if you were changing it to something radically different, but this proposal is for changing it to something almost exactly the same. This is a proposal, it has nothing to do with sources. Silverseren^C 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Sseren. Read Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_and_article_titles. The term "Criticism of Judaism" isn't nearly widespread enough to demand that the article be placed under a "common usage" name, so a descriptive title is used. Especially read the linked section to WP:NPOV. Scattered academic use of a term is not sufficient to support a confusing and problematic article title. SDY (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Object - Why should Judaism be treated differently that Christianity or Islam? This is yet another attempt to delete/gut the article. Since the deletionists "lost" the AfD, the re-name appears to be yet another tactic is dilute/transform the article to be less objectionable. The "rename" RfC linked to above is a generic discussion about "Should 'Criticism of ..' articles be avoided?" In general, I would agree that "Criticism of ..." articles should be avoided. However, there are many "Crticism of ..." articles that are appropriate. The most notable example is in the area of religion, where we have:

• Criticism of Religion
• Criticism of Christianity
• Criticism of Judaism
• Criticism of Islam
• Criticism of Hinduism
• Criticism of Mormonism
• Criticism of Buddhism
• Criticism of Catholicism

These are all very valuable articles in the encyclopedia for several reasons:

• (1) Criticism of religion is an important area of human discourse that must be prominently documented in this encyclopedia;
• (2) They are WP:Summary Style articles that help readers navigate and find content;
• (3) Due to ownership issues, the content - as a practical matter - will never be found in the primary articles on the religion;
• (4) These articles have survived numerous delete and rename proposals for good reasons, documented in the Talk pages;
• (5) These topics are notable, well-documented subjects in their own right, with a large number of sources that document the content; and
• (6) The Criticism of religion article is very important and broad, and these can be viewed as sub-articles of that top-level article.

When Richard Dawkins claims that Judaism promotes violence, he is criticizing the faith, not analyzing it. When Israel Shahak claims that Judaism's laws discriminate against non-Jews, he is criticizing it, not analyzing it. When the feminists claim that Judaism treats women as second-class persons, they are criticizing it, not analyzing it. Let's not use weasel-words. --Noleander (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say, "Why should Judaism be treated differently that Christianity or Islam?" This is not based in policy. Wikipedia has no grand scheme relating articles to one another. No policy applies to the relating of one article to another. Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Noleander's comment. This article is not about analysis, it is about criticisms. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (Since making a proposal doesn't necessarily mean I support it) Due to Noleander's comment, i'm afraid i'm going to have to oppose my own proposal, as he has a very good point. While critical analysis would work for other topics, in terms of religion, it truly is Criticism that we are documenting, not Critical Analysis. Even though Criticism is a slightly negative word in the consciousness of the population, it is still extremely accurate in describing what we are trying to cover in this article. It is true that, throughout history, various religions and religion itself have been criticized on various points, not analyzed. In a way, analysis is too neutral of a word to be describing what we are documenting in this article. Silverseren^C 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, looks like consensus is opposed to the name change, shall we call this one decided? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more like no consensus, but yes, there isn't a consensus to change. Silverseren^C 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's it: insufficient consensus to justify a change. However, if anyone can put forth a proposal for making the name change in conjunction with a specific way of organizing the page, in a way that would advance the overall consensus about this page, I would think that could still be appropriate to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the Topic Just Made up?

(I broke this off into a new section to keep discussion about whether the article should exist separate from the informal rfc about the name change, I think they are two separate issues. I hope no one minds that I've separated them where I did) --Nuujinn (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — The topic is just made up. There are no sources to support the overarching theme of the article. Consensus insists that we override basic Wikipedia standards of notability to contrive to write about something that does not have a prior existence in sources outside of Wikipedia. Yes, there are sources for individual topics within the article. But those sources are of "criticisms" within a context of a particular topic. It constitutes original research to assemble disparate criticisms from disparate topics under the unifying heading of "criticism" when no source can be produced for that heading. This does not merely represent an acceptable stretching of original research for some beneficial purpose. It is in fact a contrivance. It is a contrivance because there already exists a context for such criticism that is completely supported by sources. The sources for each of these so-called criticisms are topics within Judaism. As the sources place these criticisms within the context of topics, we should be following suit. That implies that for instance the kosher-slaughter-as-cruelty-to-animals thesis has as its proper context the Schechita article, not a "criticism" article. The topic "criticism of Judaism" is merely a creation of editors. Sources are required for articles or they fail notability. This is super-obvious, but consensus would rather run roughshod over basic Wikipedia policy simply to create an article that will gather together in one place negative commentary on Judaism. That would be fine it it were supported by sources, but no sources support the overriding theme of the article. Contrivances like this channel editor's energies away from working on articles that are compliant with fundamental Wikipedia policy, therefore they are hardly harmless. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article survived two Deletion proposals. So did all the other "Criticism of someReligion ..." articles. I understand that you dont like the outcome, but the time has come to turn our attention to improving the article. Continuing to pursue attempts at deletion, via re-naming, are not useful. Please focus on helping resolve the issues discussed above in the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — Since the last AfD I think it has fairly conclusively been decided the existence of another article does not require that this article must exist too, in order to somehow "balance" it out. This has been discussed at the NPOV discussion page (here). The strong conclusion is that WP:NPOV does not operate across articles. It is only operational within articles. Eliminate all the votes in the last AfD that said: "Article A exists therefore Article B should exist too, in order to "balance it out," or some such language, and the AfD could have turned out differently.

We are required to adhere closely to what sources say. We are not at liberty to do as we please with material that we find in sources — reliable though those sources may be. We have an obligation to cleave to the original meaning as conveyed by sources and not misconstrue them as we personally feel inclined. That is what being a Wikipedian means. Wikipedia isn't anyone's private playground. Whenever faced with a choice to convey the essence of the material that sources provide us with, and going off in a direction astray from that source, we must always choose the option of cleaving to that source. The existence of this article represents a straying from sources. The reinsertion of this material into articles that sources bear a close affinity to, represents the embodiment of primary Wikipedia principles. Adherence to sources is not just a side-theme at Wikipedia.

I'm an artist. When I wanna be creative i paint. But I don't come to Wikipedia to be creative. No one minds if I misconstrue reality in my paintings. Articles on Wikipedia have to satisfy notability requirements. The Reference desks at Wikipedia are a little looser. I do feel that I have the leeway to convey a personal perspective when I participate at the Reference desks sometimes. But I think article space is for strict adherence especially to the most basic wikipedia principles involving close adherence to sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, quote one editor who used the phrase "balance it out". This article isn't going anywhere. WP:Get over it. If you can't deal with that, you're free to unwatch the page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop has a valid point: there are no sources support the overriding theme of the article. The consensus about this article is changing, and it has become apparent that the existence of this article conflicts head on with Wikipedia policy. There may be editors who strongly believe that this article isn't going anywhere, but they don't have any external sources to justify the article's existence either. Its about some some editors recognised that the Emperor has no clothes, or more specifically, this topic lacks a verifiable definition other than its title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The phrase is not just made up, as Silverseren and Tryptofish have pointed out. There's no field of study call "Criticism of Judaism", but Judaism receives critical analysis from feminists and theologians, for example, and in the common usage of the term criticism there a clear history. I think we're moving towards a summary style article, which is perfectly adequate for an article combining a variety of related concepts. The article is undergoing an overhaul, and just survived an AFD, so I would suggest that everyone assume good faith, keep an eye on things, and contribute to improving the article for the time being and see how good an article we can make here. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that neither WP:AGF or WP:SS are rationale for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article on their own. Summary style articles already exist for the topics to which the coverage in this article relate, so it would be better to add content to those articles rather than dumping criticisms about various tenets of Jewish belief here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you that some content would be better served in other locations, and, as you can see from the discussion here, folks in engaged in trying to achieve some consensus in what works well here and what does not. I am sure your intentions are good, but I believe that WP:AGF does apply to letting the folks interested in the topic to work to achieve consensus, rather than to continue to argue that the article should not exist at all so soon after an AFD resulted in a keep. Note that Sandstein's comment at closure included this: 'Most "delete" arguments concern the content of the article, including its neutrality and the selection of topics which it covers. This is a class of problems that can be resolved by judicious consensus-based editing rather than deletion.' We are trying to resolve the problems in the article through consensus building, so it seems to me that we're in line with all appropriate policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BusStop: The community has decided that the article will exist (twice: [1] and [2]). Repeated attempts to delete it are wasteful and disrespectful. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and Wikipedia:Canvassing#Forum_shopping. You are ignoring all the information about primary sources on this topic presented above in the Talk page, such as at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Sources. If you cannot constructively contribute to the article, please take it off your watch list. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think two nominations for deletion are exactly a ringing endorsement of this article either. It seems to me that unless an externally validated definition for this article topic is cited, then it will be put up for deletion again. If its definition relies on original research or synthesis, then that will be another valid reason for deletion. If there's no field of study call "Criticism of Judaism" in the real world, how on earth can you justify allowing original research on this theme to be conducted here in Wikipedia? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Here's a copy of what I just posted over at the Article Titles discussion page about Gavin wanting examples. I'll get to looking for ones on Judaism, since these mainly aren't. Silverseren^C 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Silverseren^C 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For Christianity. Silverseren^C 23:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of religion from psychology. Silverseren^C 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Paine's Criticism of Christianity and the Old Testament. Silverseren^C 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful information here. Silverseren^C 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's Nietzsche book, for good measure. Silverseren^C 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

SS, you're totally missing the point. No one is contesting that some sources use the terms. Can you demonstrate that sources overwhelmingly use the term or that people would not recognize the topic unless you use the title "Criticism of Judaism"? The title is inappropriate because, as the "what doth" discussion above indicates, it is unclear. Reading the opposition to the name move, it's because some of the people discussing are actively interested in having an article that covers "Finding Fault with Judaism" (the unambiguous plain language translation of "Criticism of Judaism"). SDY (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When they use the term as titles of books, essays, and chapters, I would call it overwhelmingly used. Silverseren^C 01:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

By "overwhelming" I mean that people would not recognize the topic without the name and that sources that address the topic always use the term and the term has an unambiguous meaning. The meaning of "Criticism of Judaism" is extremely unclear, as evidenced by discussions on this very talk page! SDY (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The title is really not all that important to me. I just want to work on improving the information in the article. Silverseren^C 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless y'all can agree on what the topic of the article is, working on the content is unlikely to be fruitful. If the topic is scholarly analysis, then we should make that clear in the title. If the topic is "Finding Fault with Judaism", improving the article will take a very different approach. I really WP:DGAF about this article, but it's clear that it's being used as a test case for criticism articles as a group. SDY (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And in my opinion, FWIW, it shouldn't be used as a test case for the general question of whether "Criticism of X" should exist. At this point, the article is weak, and we're trying to achieve consensus on how to improve it. Since the article just survived an AFD, time should be allowed for that process to play out, for better or worse. If folks want a test case for "Criticism of X" in the general case, I believe it would be more productive to pick a strong, stable article. We all agree that this article isn't in the best shape, so it's easy to find problems with it. Treating a strong article as a test case eliminates (to the extent possible) the other issues from the discussion, and thus highlights whatever problems are inherent in a "Criticism of X" article.

Well, as for the question of what "Criticism of Judaism" means, I don't see much confusion--there are two broad uses being discussed, the narrower academic usage (analysis of...), and the general use (what's wrong with...). It seems to me that the disagreements are about what weight to give each. Does it seem to anyone else that those discussions are being muddied by overlap with the discussions that are really about whether the article should exist at all? The latter question was addressed in the AFD. I know everyone is acting in good faith, but at some point continued discussion on whether the article should exist becomes non-productive, and I think we're at that point. So, with respect, I would ask editors concerned with that particular question to please step back from the bloody patch 'o ground where once a horse lay, and give us some time to address the other issues. I'm certain that that question will and should be raised at some point in the near future, but my feeling is that this is not the time, and it's not like we're trying to rescue kittens are trapped in the burning house. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — that (kitten reference) links to WP:NORUSH, where I find "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Yes, this article already exists, but is its significance unambiguously established?

This article already exists, granted, but does it have an identity carved out for itself by reliable sources? Or does it have an identity slapped on it by editors? The image I have is of a label with a sticky side and a side with writing on it. In my vision, and I mean this respectfully, I see this article as a container with such a label made up by editors and stuck upon it. The label reads "Criticism of Judaism." Please don't think I'm meaning to be disrespectful of editors who are trying to work on this. The origin of that label is just the minds of editors. Does that constitute a kernel for an article on Wikipedia? Each of these so-called criticisms has a context. Most importantly, they have a context in sources. When you locate a criticism of Judaism it is not found in the context of criticism of Judaism. What it is found in is the context of some aspect of Judaism. Thus these "criticisms" find a natural home in the articles they have an affinity with. We should be working on organizing the encyclopedia so that all negative commentary on Judaism can be easily found in their respective articles. But we shouldn't be tossing aside Wikipedia fundamental principles highhandedly to establish the article of our choice despite the absence of a genuine carving out of an identity for it in reliable sources. I have tried to suggest ways in which the Judaism article can be rejiggered to make finding this information easily. In all cases that would involve linking to articles that are on solid ground. In my opinion that sort of scheme represents a viable way forward. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your intent, but the effect you're having is to slow the already slow process of discussing what should be done with the article. The AFD process established that whatever problems the article has, it should not be deleted at this time. WP:NORUSH also says "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established", and I would argue that the AFD shows that the consensus is that this article has that potential, even though it is not new. I'll ask again, please put down the stick and step away from the dead horse. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. If you look at, say, Criticism of Christianity, it is 5 years old and fairly mature - and it is balanced, informative, and is well-sourced. But Criticism of Judaism has never had an opportunity to get "finished". If we work together, there is every reason to believe that it will end up as an informative, educational, balanced article that helps readers, and in no way disparages the religion. As pointed out above in these Talk pages, nearly every criticism has "rebuttal" information that portrays Judaism in a positive light, and there is solid consensus that such "rebuttal" information should be prominently included with every criticism. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — there are no sources in the introductory paragraph of the Criticism of Christianity article just as there are no sources provided for the introductory paragraph of this article. I hardly consider that mature, balanced, informative, well-sourced. Wouldn't one expect for instance, notability to be somewhat established in an introductory paragraph of an article of this nature? You seem to blithely ignore problems I point out, as if we are not both working on the same project. Shouldn't you be trying to AGF? Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Noleander's point is that our goal should be to improve the article. We are all aware that there are plenty of problems, and our time would be better served trying to solve them. If you think that Criticism of Christianity should be deleted, by all mean, nominate it, it will be interesting to watch the discussion. Also, it is not at all uncommon for leads to lack references, since they represent a summary of the article's content. So, no, I for one would not expect notability to be established by sourcing data in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE for the relevant policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly believe that all content should be vigorously and painstakingly sourced. However, when it comes to lead paragraphs, I've always leaned towards omitting cites, so it reads smoother ... and the reader would have to go into the body of the article to find cites. But if the consensus here is to add cites to the lead paragraph of this article, I would go along with that, and could help add cites. --15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been abundantly addressed above in this Talk page and in the AfDs. If you think the article should be deleted, you may propose it for deletion a third time. Please stop disrupting this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, is there a particular claim that you're disputing? From WP:Verifiability: "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation." Are you challenging a particular statement? The idea with the lead is that the statements are general and non-controversial. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• So...is anyone going to look at the sources I gave in the section below? I would like to get to work on the article. Silverseren^C 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look tonight for sure. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Another section for sources

To discuss new sources that have been found.

"Judaism: fossil or ferment?" seems like a good source, since it discusses Toynbee's criticisms of Judaism, while also offering the author's alternative viewpoints, balancing them out nicely. Silverseren^C 23:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good source. Toynbee did famously criticize Judaism for being a "fossil culture society" (in the 1930s). I did not propose it for inclusion in the article in the list located at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#List of criticisms because his criticism was aimed more a Jewish culture than Judaism (religion). But there are tons of secondary sources discussing Toynbee's criticism. Because it is aimed primarily at the culture rather than the religion, I would still lean towards excluding it. --Noleander (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We might be able to use it for something or use some aspect of his work. We'll have to see how the sections get set up in the end. Silverseren^C 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This encyclopedia does not yet have any discussion (in any article) of Toynbee's "fossil society" claim ... there is a small hint at Arnold_J._Toynbee # Reception_and_criticism but nothing signficant. Secondary sources that discuss the "fossil society" claim include:

• The Toynbee heresy: address delivered at the Israel by Abba Solomon Eban
• Arnold Toynbee on Judaism and Zionism: a critique by Oskar K. Rabinowicz
• The Revival of the Fossil Remnant: Or Toynbee and Jewish Nationalism by Nathan Rotenstreich
• Judaism: fossil or ferment? by Eliezer Berkovits
• The professor and the fossil: some observations on Arnold J. Toynbee's A study of history by Maurice Samuel

--Noleander (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And how could you talk about criticisms of Judaism without putting a little Hegel in there. Silverseren^C 23:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that fits within the scope of the article. --Noleander (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Another source for this article may be the writings of people like Isaac Deutscher, Karl Marx, Elisha ben Abuyah, Heinrich Heine, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, and Sigmund Freud .. all of whom were ethnic Jews that turned away from Judaism (as a religion) in favor of a humanism or atheism (or, in one case, Christianity). However, I am not aware of any specific criticism they make that is has not already been proposed in this Talk page (see Talk:Criticism of Judaism#List of criticisms). --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And I do believe that we should have something on Paul's opinion of Judaism in there. Silverseren^C 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are significant criticisms from Paul. However, many of them belong in the article anti-Judaism which is defined as: "Criticisms of Judaism that focus on the fact that Judaism does not follow the doctrines/beliefs of another religion e.g. Christianity or Islam". So criticisms that "Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Messiah" or "Judaism does not follow the Quran" belong in the anti-Judaism article. On the other hand, criticisms such as "Judaism persecuted early Christians" or "Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging remarks about other religions" belong in this article, not anti-Judaism. --Noleander (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For "Persecution of early Christians" see

• Hare, Douglas R. A. (2005). The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052102045X.
• Persecution_of_Christians#Persecution_of_early_Christians_in_Judea
• Judith M. Lieu (1998), "Accusations of Jewish persecution in early Christian sources", in Tolerance and intolerance in early Judaism and Christianity, Graham Stanton, Guy G. Stroumsa (Eds), Cambridge University Press, pp. 279-295.

--Noleander (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind some Da Costa and Spinoza either. Silverseren^C 23:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spinoza definitely belongs in the article. The April 7, 2010 version of this article had a good WP:Summary Style overview of his criticisms, and that is archived here: Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism/SourceList#Rejection_of_concept_of_a_personal_God. In general, I think the sections of this article need to be organized by topic (e.g. "Criticism of concept of Chosen People" rather than by the critic/source; for a couple of reasons: (1) the article is about criticisms, not critics; and (2) all criticisms are made by multiple critics. Therefore, I don't believe there should be a section entitled "Spinoza" - instead "Chosen People" (or a similar topic-oriented title) is better. --Noleander (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW: I added Hegel and da Costa to the list of (primary source) critics here: Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#Sources. Spinoza and Paul were already in the list. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with Uriel da Costa until you mentioned him here. One of his key works is partially online here. Indeed, he seems to be in the same league as Spinoza (he was also subject to cherem/excommunication) and his writings are certainly appropriate sources for this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I agree that it should be done by the criticism, not the critic. It's just helpful to figure out what the criticism sections should be by looking at one or more major critics. Then it's easier to look for related information by other people. Silverseren^C 20:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible outlines for this article

A few months ago, there was a discussion about possible outlines for this article. They are in the archives here: Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism/Archive_2#Other_similar_articles and Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism/Archive_2#Summary_style_.26_possible_outline. There was not much interest in outlines at the time, and no consensus was achieved. But now it may be a good time to revive that discussion and see if we can get consensus on a good approach. Reviewing those Talk page discussions, and the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, it seems like there are a few approaches:

1) Group criticisms into broadly-related groups

• Doctrine (Chosen people, Historical accuracy of origins, Promised land, etc)
• Practices (Circumcision, animal cruelty, etc)
• Discrimination (Women, homosexuals, non-Jews, Slavery)
• Authority (too authoritarian; laws need not be followed literally, etc)
• Historical Events (ancient violence)
• ... etc ...

2) No grouping - all criticisms are presented as top-level sections:

• Homosexuality
• Women (includes Divorce, Menstruation, etc)
• Religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews
• Slavery
• ... etc ...

3) Group by branch that the criticism applies to

• Orthodox
• Hassidic
• Conservative
• Reform
• Reconstructionist
• Karaite
• ... etc ...

4) Group by source of criticism

• From reformers
• From Islam
• From Christianity
• From atheists
• From activists
• From philosophers
• ... etc ...

(Disclaimer: the inclusion of specific topics in the example outlines above is not intended to pre-suppose inclusion of those topics in this article; instead they are presented merely to help illustrate possible outlines):

Looking at the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, it appears that they tend to follow approach (1). The fuller version of this article from early April 2010 follows approach (2). Any thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Number one seems to me the better path. Number four would require us to decide what category to put the author of the criticism, and that, whether done properly or not, would be considered OR by some editors. Number three would require lots of duplication, since the same critical view on a topic would apply to more than one group. Number three would be just plain messy. Number one would allow us to put the criticisms into simple groups to follow and would facilitate moving information into or out of other articles for each subtopic. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that (3) would involve lots of duplication. Likewise, I think (4) would involve lots of duplication. Number (1) does seem best, overall. About the only downside to (1) that I can think of is that there may be a criticism that does not naturally fall into one of the top-level categories (Doctrines, Practices, etc) ... but if that happens I suppose we could just position that criticism at the bottom of the article, as a sibling of those top-level sections. --Noleander (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Or we could make a section entitled "Original Research",grind them up and stuff all the leftovers down in there. No, wait, maybe that's not such a good idea. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If we decide to go with approach (1), here is an example outline that takes the sections from the April 7, 2010 version of this article, and puts them into an outline. It is not perfect, of course, but it is a starting point.

• Doctrine

• Rejection of concept of a personal God for Jews
• Rejection of concept of Chosen People
• Land ownership conflicts in Middle East
• Historical accuracy of origins/foundations of the religion

• Discrimination

• Persecution of other faiths
• Religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews
• Slavery
• Homosexuality
• Women

• Divorce and agunah
• Inequality
• Niddah (menstruation laws)

• Practices

• Shechita (re: Cruelty to animals)
• Brit milah (covenant of circumcision)

• Inter-branch criticisms

• Criticism of Conservative Judaism by traditionalists
• Criticism of traditional Judaism by reform movement

• Violence

• Ancient (genocide, etc)
• Modern

All of those sections (except "Religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews") have existing topic-specific articles already, so this is consistent with a WP:Summary Style approach. Alternatively, we could go with approach (2) if approach (1) proves to be untenable. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good starting point to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. To help see if it is acceptable, I've taken the April 7, 2010 version of this article and re-arranged its sections to follow that example outline (the one immediately above). That sample article can be viewed here, and it shows how the outline looks with actual content in the sections. Any feedback or comments on that outline would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If the above outline is acceptable, it may be time to start working on the article itself, for a couple of reasons: first, it looks like consensus-building has reached a good point (that is, no new suggestions are arriving ... most discussion is now repeating older discussions); and second, there is a decent outline proposed (above), and the next step would be to translate that outline into a concrete article and see how it looks. I propose incorporating the above outline into the article body itself, using the May 12 (13:58) version of the article. I'm not suggesting that all the content in that version is appropriate for this article, I'm merely suggesting it will serve as a better starting point than any other version of this article. In particular, it is better than the the version that just happened to be in the WP database the moment the article was locked on May 12 at 23:25. Regardless of which version we start with, one task we'll need to focus on is ensuring NPOV by adding more balancing/rebuttal/otherViewpoint information for each criticism. --Noleander (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception of Judaism

Maybe this has already been suggested and maybe I'm throwing a monkey wrench but wouldn't the use of the word Reception imply both negative, neutral and positive feedback on Judaism and allow for rebuttals and thus be satisfy WP:NPOV? Would it please some of the opponents of this page to have this naming? I wanted to point out some Wikipedia history. Wikipedia Criticism essay/practices set forth back in 2006 suggested that WP:NPOV could be satisfied only if a Criticism section/fork existed. It seems that philosophy still exists in many editors POV. Thankyou to, I think, user CDY for pointing out the WP:Reception essay. Alatari (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a situation where "reception" makes for a poor title. While I would support moving this article to something less restrictive on content, in this case it sounds very artificial and makes it even less clear what the reader should expect in the contents of the article. SDY (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be pointed out that this custom/doctrine/guide of an article fails NPOV unless it has a criticism or reception section(or sub-article) has been around since 2006 and is adhered to by many editors. I see you and others arguing for the non-existence of Criticism of foo articles and this essay is diametrically opposed to your arguments. Alatari (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change

If we changed the name to "Criticism of Judaism by the Jewish community" we could write an article at least as long as the torah. I will say it plainly: I...LOVE...JUDAISM. I am not out to disparage Judaism. i am trying to help write an article on a notable subject that i have a personal interest in. If some people really dont think that criticism of Judaism exists, i have nothing more to say to them, and i suspect they have nothing to say to me that can help WP. I hope that in the long run this article will not be overrun by POV pushers who deliberately ignore reliably sourced material. I know i cant say any more on this, due to the tone of the debate here. I will unwatch this and try to forget about it. Baruch Hashem.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We may as well change the name of this article to Why Judaism is bad. That adequately describes the current content and is an unambiguous plain language translation of the current title. SDY (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Bad things about Judaism would be better. Bus stop (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are disruptive and are interfering with good faith attempts to improve the article. See Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. The community has decided that the article will exist (twice: [3] and [4]). If you cannot constructively contribute to the article, please take it off your watch list. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have started to become familiar with this talk, I find that I agree with what Mercury and Noleander said here. See also: Proverbs 18:2. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly comfortable with disrupting articles which are contrary to core principles of the project. One-sided arguments against a topic are not consistent with WP:NPOV, which demands that we have balanced coverage in articles. If you cannot find pleasure in understanding the purpose of an encyclopedia and want to air your own opinions write a book, where synthesis and pontificating are welcomed. SDY (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

SDY: Your opinions (well documented in your essay) are inconsistent with the decisions the broader WP community has repeatedly made in regard to criticism-of-religion articles such as Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, etc. The community has repeatedly - over a six year period - supported those articles. Feel free to submit a proposal for deleting this article. Feel free to write a new article on Analysis of Judaism. But please limit your comments on this Talk page to suggestions on how to improve the article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

SDY, your point about WP:NPOV is quite accurate, and entirely in line with policy and practice, as outlined in the section I have added below. Please note that even the Criticism of Islam restricts the scope of the material in it, and has a big message box saying the article "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." Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

JayJG: please be more accurate when representing the views of other editors. No one has ever suggested generic "monotheism is wrong" criticisms be included in this article. The only proposed criticism that comes close to what you are suggesting was in fact very specific to Judaism, namely the criticism: "the personal God that is described in the Tanakh (talking to Moses, talking to the Jews, establishing covenants with the Jews") does not exist and did not engage in those acts in relation to the Jews". Please be more precise and less inflammatory. --Noleander (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment is entirely accurate, and your comment appears to have little relation to my own, or to article content. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your claim that "the criticism: "the personal God that is described in the Tanakh (talking to Moses, talking to the Jews, establishing covenants with the Jews") does not exist and did not engage in those acts in relation to the Jews"." is "very specific to Judaism", as has already been explained, that's simply not true. In fact, Christianity and Islam share that same belief. See #List of criticisms, and in the future please pay closer attention to the arguments being made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Progress on consensus-building

It's been 16 days since this article was locked due to failure to obtain consensus on content. Ten days ago, some progress was made, and we agreed on a WP:Summary Style approach (in this Talk page above). There's been significant discussion since then, so it is probably a good idea to update the areas of consensus. Based on the discussions in the AfD and this Talk page, it looks like areas of consensus include:

1. The article will exist
2. The article's scope is: Negative criticisms about Judaism's laws, texts, practices, or doctrines.
3. The article will be WP:Summary Style.
4. Most detailed information will be in the other topic-specific articles (e.g. Jewish feminism or whatever). If a topic-specific article does not exist, it will be created, or the detail will be put into this article.
5. All content in this article must be phrased in a neutral manner
6. All criticisms will be accompanied by balancing, rebuttal, or contextual information to ensure compliance with NPOV policies, and to ensure that readers get the full picture.
7. Insignificant criticisms are excluded, by requiring that all criticisms be documented by reliable secondary sources
8. Antisemitic canards are generally excluded, but if any are included, they will be only briefly mentioned at the bottom of the article.
9. Criticisms that are of the nature "Judaism is wrong because it does not follow Christianity or Islam" will go into Anti-Judaism article, not this article.
10. If a criticism is limited to just some branches of Judaism, that will be prominently noted.

Of course, not all the above items were unanimous. Some dissensions include (numbers refer to the list immediately above):

• (1) Users BusStop and SDY have hinted at deletion or, at least, changing the nature of the article so it is inconsistent with similar articles Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, etc.
• (2) Users Avi and JayJG have proposed alternative scopes. JayJG's proposal is not, in my opinion, plausible because (a) it excludes fundamental criticisms of Judaism's religious laws, religious texts, and religious practices - which would lead to an empty article; and (b) JayJG's proposal is contrary to the consensus of the wider WP community as established during the six year histories of the many "Criticism of someReligion" articles, including the two AfDs of this article.
• (7) User AzureFury has suggested no limitation on the significance of the criticisms. But this is probably a non-issue, because every criticism that has been proposed is supported by secondary sources.
• (8) User SilverSeren has suggested that antisemtic canards be included, provided that they are also valid criticisms. But this is probably a non-issue, because no editor has proposed an antisemitic canard for inclusion.

Some debate will, no doubt, continue to happen sporadically on items (1) and (2) above, but I think it is time we turned towards improving this article, which is in an atrocious state. A good place to start may be to consider ideas for outlines, as is happening in a section above in this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say that:

"(1) Users BusStop and SDY have hinted at deletion or, at least, changing the nature of the article so it is inconsistent with similar articles Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, etc."

There is no such thing as "consistency" or "inconsistency" with other articles. Each article is separate on Wikipedia. No article causes in another article a requirement to follow in a similar fashion.

This error in reasoning can be seen in about 50% of the votes for "keep" in the recent AfD, implying that the result of that AfD is not as decisive as some would convey.

There is no policy that implies that one article needs to follow in the footsteps of another article. If you know of such a policy please bring that policy to our attention. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

When did I suggest "no limitation on the significance of the criticisms"? Significance is determined by WP:weight, per policy. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake ... I must have misunderstood. I'll strike that out. --Noleander (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The entire existence of this article hinges on the existence of similar criticism articles for other religions. To be clear, I'm opposed to all of them, not this one in particular, so arguments of consistency with other articles will not convince me. They are consistently inappropriate, and we happen to be talking about this one solely because it was the tipping point for a recent discussion about the appropriateness of this entire class of article. I concur with Bus stop that without the "other stuff exists" argument, there was little content in the opposition to deletion. SDY (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. But there have been about 20 (!) proposals for deletion on the various "Criticism of someReligion" articles, and the result every time is "Keep". So if we want to gain insight into what the broader WP community thinks of this class of article, the overwhelming support expressed in those AfDs is persuasive. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the arguments for retention end up being rather circular (i.e. we should have Criticism of Islam because we have Criticism of Judaism and we should have Criticism of Judaism because we have Criticism of Islam), so individual AfD's on the topic aren't particularly convincing. This is an issue that has to be dealt with on a global scale, because the potential for an appearance of bias if we criticize some religions and not others is obviously a concern. SDY (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just criticism of religion articles. Pretty much every large organization or individual has an article that includes or focuses on criticisms. If you want to start campaigning against "Criticism of" articles in general, good luck. You will not be the first one. But until you have some sort of decisive statement, say from the WP:Arbitration Committee, you simply do not have support to delete this article on those grounds. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with AzureFury's comments, and will add that this talk page is not the proper venue for discussion of whether or not articles named Criticism of X should exist. Please move the discussion to a more appropriate venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Point 1: I just wanted clarification. This article is a stand alone article not a sub-article/content fork of Criticism of religion or Judaism. It's NPOV will be judged by it's own merits and not inherited/relating to a content fork parent? Alatari (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is a stand-alone article, but could also be viewed as a sub-article of Criticism of religion. If one compares the various "Criticism of someReligion" articles with Criticism of religion, the same topics are often covered: texts, doctrines, historicity, treatment of women, ethics, leaders, etc. At the moment, the Criticism of religion article simply refers to the various "Criticism of someReligion" articles in its "See Also" section - but in the future it may be useful to improve that relationship. Also, see Template:Criticism of religion which has links to all the "Criticism of some religion articles" and other related topics. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you refer to "this class of article" a couple of posts up. Here you say "improve that relationship." I have to say this again: each article is separate. Policy does not indicate a class of articles that this article belongs to. In your perception certain articles might comprise a class, and you may endeavor to "improve" a "relationship" between articles. But such efforts have no counterpart in policy; they are merely your own initiatives. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They're called topics. Criticism of religion and it's related sub-articles can be viewed as all related under the same topic. Silverseren^C 03:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — yes, they are called topics, but the notion of topics has nothing to do with policy. One article has no bearing on another article as concerns policy. Each article carries its own responsibility of upholding standards of policy such as neutral point of view and notability as are applicable to it as an individual article. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true. However, articles in topics, especially for new articles in a topic, are expected to follow, roughly, the same format as the other articles in the topic. The same can be said for sub-articles of an over-branching article. Thus, we are expected to take our cues on what types of subjects to include in this article from the other related articles in the topic. Silverseren^C 04:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — you say, "expected to follow." But can you please tell me where can be found the articulation of that expectation? Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, not every iota of wikipedia is governed by rules and policy, and you are not being helpful at this point. This pettifoggery is impeding our efforts to move forward, and I believe it is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. I ask again that you cease, if only for a while, and let us get some work done here. I'm sure you'll be watching closely and will be willing to evaluate the results of our efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — if it is not policy than it need not be followed in blind and rote fashion. If there is no policy suggesting a "class of article" then this article does not have to conform to a "type." The language, "class of article," is potentially misleading to new participants or to anybody else not aware that this article need not follow the lead of another article. There is mention above of improving a relationship with other articles. Who is to say what constitutes improvement, in this regard? Would following in the footsteps of the errors of others constitute improvement? Would it be an improvement to this article to include what is not relevant to this article? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that the other criticism of religion articles are full of "errors". Your argument seems to be that this article shouldn't conform to the standards set by similar articles and, thus, because it doesn't conform, it should be deleted. Circular much? Silverseren^C 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — you are misconstruing what I said. I did not say that another article was "full of errors." And I did not say this article should be "deleted." I made the point that articles are separate and as such should follow the criteria that are particular to them. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You've been saying delete this entire time. :/ And because these articles are similar and under the same topic, the criteria would also be similar. Their criteria are not going to be radically different. Silverseren^C 20:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — you continue to misconstrue what I say. Please try to understand the point that I've tried to make in several posts. This article, as all articles, stands as an independent entity. It need not include something just because another article includes it. There have been a wide variety of subjects suggested for inclusion by you and others. But there may be reasons to leave them out, despite the fact that they are found in other articles. Something that may rightfully belong in one article may not rightfully belong in another article. The topics suggested are wide-ranging in subject matter. Nothing ties them together. They are just construed as having a thread of "Judaism" running through them. Also potentially problematic is whether all things "negative" constitute "criticism." Editorial decisions will be called for here, with the usual looking to consensus for finalization as to what is to be included and what is not to be included. And importantly, sources will be necessary. I think it is not just my view but the view expressed by others, not to mention fundamental Wikipedia policy, that topics will be required to adhere closely to sources. You can anticipate that I will object to any attempt to include as "criticism" certain topics that I do not view as "criticism" and for which I have not seen sources convincingly characterize as "criticism" — this despite the fact that another article can be shown to include such a topic. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay? I'm not entirely sure what we were arguing about anymore, but i'm going to get back to looking for usable sources. I'll be putting them in the correct section above, if you would like to comment on what I find. Silverseren^C 21:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, Nuujinn, Silver Seren, ignoring or misrepresenting the views of those who disagree with you isn't going advance consensus in any way. Significant issues with several topic areas have been raised; material that belongs in other articles belongs in other articles. Those who disagree with the false "consensus" described here include Avraham, Jpgordon, ChesDovi, Bus stop, SDY and Steven J. Anderson. Claiming that all those who disagree are "impeding our efforts to move forward" shows a grave misunderstanding of Wikipedia processes, and a serious disrespect for a number of editors who, in many cases, have vastly more experience with editing Wikipedia and with its policies than yourselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And to further clarify what I mean, Noleander has made 4270 edits, AzureFury 2932, Nuujinnn 3216, SilverSeren 4607. Not one of you is an administrator. By contrast, I've made over 80,000 edits, and Jpgordon and Avraham 40,000 each. We're all admins, and have had held other significant roles. I've also written 6 Featured Articles and 6 Good Articles. Even Steven J. Anderson has made over 15,150 edits (as many as the four of you combined), Bus stop 11,700 edits and ChesDovi 10,500. We are all significantly more experienced editors than you, in every conceivable way. For you to insist that we are all wrong, and "pettifogging", "impeding progress", "disruptive", "interfering", etc., while you are editing within policy, is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You've forgotten Tryptofish 10,086. But, anyways, edit count doesn't mean anything at all. There are numerous ways to increase edit count drastically. And I have not said you are all wrong (or invoked pettifogging), i'm saying that none of you are trying to make the article better. You keep complaining about different parts of it, but have yet to offer any possible improvements to it other than wanting it to be deleted. There are those of us here that are trying to actively improve the content in the article. I understand if you don't like certain sections, but then offer alternative sections to be included. If you don't like the format, offer a different format. If you don't want to improve the article, then why are you here? Silverseren^C 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, as I said above, I haven't said I "wanted it deleted"; as I have stated quite clearly multiple times, I did not take part in the AfD, and have no objection to a proper article on the topic. Stop "deliberately asserting false information", per policy. In addition, edit count, and all the rest means experience. Experience with what belongs in an article and what doesn't. Experience with what the policies mean, and how they should be applied. Removing inappropriate material from an article improves it. Adding inappropriate material make it worse. You want to add inappropriate material. To quote you, "If you don't want to improve the article, then why are you here?" Jayjg ^(talk) 05:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, have I tried to include that was inappropriate? Silverseren^C 06:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've listed in the section above the kind of information that is inappropriate for this article (because it belongs in other articles), and you have responded that essentially all of them should be mentioned or discussed here. You have also, among other things, and rather bizarrely, argued that there are criticisms of the contents/stories/concepts of the Tanakh that are unique to the Tanakh, and unrelated to the Bible, as if their contents were somehow significantly different. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then what things do you believe should be in this article? Silverseren^C 06:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Judaism, of course. Not criticisms of the Bible, or Circumcision, or a host of other broad and shared topics/issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and that's an Argument from authority, by the way, which is a logical fallacy. You're arguing that you're right because you have more edits than me and are an admin, when that has nothing to do with you being right or wrong. Silverseren^C 05:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've noted that those opposing you have vastly more experience with Wikipedia, both its article and policies, and therefore understand far better than you what does or does not belong in which articles. How many Featured Articles have the four of you combined written? How many Good Articles? Add in Tryptofish if you like (as you did above). Now what's the total? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I believe Silverseren has a point about the nature of your argument being an appeal to authority. And as for my view, it's really very simple. This article is in bad shape, but it just survived an AFD. Evidently this has disturbed some number of editors, both in the particular sense and in the general sense. There have been long discussions on various boards about whether this article or articles named "Criticism of X" should exist, but having survived an AFD which closed with a keep, this article should exist at least for the time being, and the editors interested in improving it should be given the chance to improve it.

If you're opposed to the existence of this article in the general sense, I would suggest that continuing that discussion here, the talk page of one specific article, is inappropriate, and at this point, disruptive. I ask that you step back a moment and consider whether you are at this point furthering the overall goals of Wikipedia. Granted, we are all significantly less experienced than you are--if that is the case, perhaps you should assume good faith and let us work here to see what we can do and learn from the experience. I'm certainly a noob, and not an administrator, but what I see here is lots and lots of policy discussions which are impeding the attempts of some of us to make a better article, which, I will add, given the topic, will be hard enough at it is. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, I can only repeat what I have stated many times; I have no objection whatsoever to a proper article on this topic. Please review my previous comments for an understanding of my actual position. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, please accept my apologies if I have mischaracterized your positions. I do not think that everyone who disagrees with a given topic is impeding progress, and I personally would trim some of the material. But I think that to achieve consensus on any aspect of this article will be very difficult, and tempers sometimes run high after an AFD. There are editors who are opposed to this article's existence in a general sense, and while I respect those opinions, those discussions do not belong here. As for specific topics to be included here, I'm sure there will be many long and difficult discussions, and I'm sure your contributions to those discussions will be valued. Perhaps is just a work flow difference, but I'd rather start with more and then trim it down, what do you think? And are you opposed to the notion of this article existing as a summary style? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

JayJG: you mention some editors that are opposed to this article: Avraham, Jpgordon, ChesDovi, Bus stop, SDY and Steven J. Anderson. But look at their suggestions in detail: BusStop, SDY, and Chesdovi all suggest that the article be deleted, contravening the very recent "Keep" decision from the second AfD. User Avraham made a proposal for the scope of this article on May 14 (see above) but not a single editor endorsed that scope (17 days have elapsed). You did not participate in this Talk page from May 12 to May 27. And now you are trotting out edit counts as if that has any significance (can you show any WP policy, or even a significant WP decision that was made based on edit counts? In fact, veteran editors are often jaded, and new editors often bring fresh, new, useful perspectives). I'd be happy to hear more input from Anderson or JpGordon, but I don't recall seeing any constructive ideas they had regarding the scope of this article (if I missed their constructive ideas, I apologize). --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why someone's objecting to the existence of this article as written would in any way disqualify them from having a valid opinion on its contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, 10K and whatever edits, considers "I am an administrator and you are not" to be a compelling argument for administrator recall (no implication as to any particular administrator here), and, in general, would rather see editors commenting on page content than on one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing no-one made that argument, then, isn't it Tryptofish? As for what you would rather see editors commenting on, you are preaching to the converted; it's getting close to a dozen times on this page that I've requested that people comment on content, not on other editors, with little apparent success. Had you only made your appeals to those individuals doing so, the many times they did it, think how differently this Talk page might have gone! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus

Yes, there is consensus on the scope of this article. To recap the events:

• May 6: The article is proposed for deletion, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination)
• May 12: The article was locked to force editors to build consensus
• May 13: AfD is closed, with consensus for "Keep"
• May 14: Two alternative proposals, called A and B, were proposed for the article's scope. See Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?.
• May 15: Several editors discuss proposed scopes. Proposal A received four (4) endorsements (in addition to the proposer); proposal B received zero (0) endorsements.
• May 18: Consensus was achieved that the article will be WP:Summary Style
• May 26: Discussion on sources such as Uriel da Costa and Hegel at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Another section for sources
• May 27: Discussion begins on best organization/outline for the article, at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Possible outlines for this article
• May 28: Two weeks after proposals A and B were made, no further proposals for scope have been made. Clearly "A" has consensus, and that conclusion is documented at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Progress on consensus-building

The above shows a very collaborative, constructive progression. Clearly consensus on scope "A" was achieved. On May 28, user JayJG submitted some ideas at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Material inappropriate for this article/scope. Based on this, JayJG claims there is no consensus. But let's look at the details:

• Consensus does not require unanimous agreement of all editors (otherwise, a single ornery editor could veto all progress)
• JayJG did not participate in this Talk page from May 12 to May 27: a critical 15 day period following the lock. This is precisely the time period when editors are mandated to put aside past differences and collaborate.
• JayJG did not make any comments on proposals A or B at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?.
• JayJG did not make any comments on other key topics under discussion, such as outline or sources.
• The ideas presented on May 28 at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Material inappropriate for this article/scope are not useful. Specifically:

• The ideas do not contain any suggestion for what the scope of the article should be; instead it is simply a list of what should not be in the article.
• The list of things that should not be in the article is so broad, that following this suggestion would result in an empty article, contravening the recent AfD discussion.
• Not a single editor endorsed JayJG's suggestions in Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Material inappropriate for this article/scope
• JayJG is now proposing that his opinion carries additional weight because he a veteran editor (see disucssion in Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Progress on consensus-building). This "grasping at straws" is a symptom of disruptive editing. Instead of commenting on the outline or sources or the proposals A and B, JayJG spent several minutes researching edit-counts and publishing them in this Talk page. That does not show a commitment to improving the article.
• There are a few editors that object to this article (BusStop, SDY, etc) but they object to the existence of the article, so those are covered by the recent "Keep" decision from the AfD.

The fact is, we do have consensus on the scope of this article. It is scope "A" from Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?. This consensus is consistent with the consensus of the wider WP community as reflected in the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles. The time has come to put aside our differences and move forward on improving the article. Towards that end, I will be incorporating the outline from Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Possible outlines for this article and applying it to the May 12 (13:58) version of the article. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — I'm still seeing you referring to "the consensus of the wider WP community as reflected in the other 'Criticism of someReligion' articles." I don't believe that an agreement among editors as to what to put in one article translates into an agreement among editors as to what to put into a second article. I believe a separate editorial agreement, or consensus, is required for the second article. If you know of policy language supporting the notion you are alluding to, then please present it here. I feel that consensus reached at one article does not have bearing on another article. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop: I agree that the other articles do not mandate how this article should be shaped. However, when we have only a handful of editors participating in this Talk page, and we are having disagreements, it is useful to look at how the wider WP community resolved similar disputes. The other "Criticism of someReligion" articles all went through similar disputes in their six-year histories, and it is instructive to see what consensus they achieved. EVERY ONE OF THOSE ARTICLES resolved their disputes by agreeing upon a scope that includes "criticism of the religion's doctrines, laws, practices, texts, and leaders" ... which is precisely the "scope A" adopted above in this talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say that we have "only a handful of editors participating in this Talk page." I would submit that it is not the shortage of editors that is the problem; it is the absence of sources. You say that "every one of those articles resolved their disputes by agreeing upon a scope." To that I would respond that it should not be necessary to agree upon a scope. Rather sources should be telling us what the scope is. Sources should be telling us what "criticism of Judaism" is and what it is not. In the absence of such sources we are left to find our own bearings. What may have been of relevance to another article may not be of relevance to this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, your comments are unnecessary and unwelcome while you continue to ignore the sources that have been posted on this talk page. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — can you show me a source that can serve as a guide as to what is included under the heading of "criticism of Judaism"? Virtually this entire Talk page is occupied with determining what is included and what is excluded under that heading. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Weight. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear what that is in reference to. If you are trying to make a point please take the extra time to type a few words to make your point clearer. Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and rehash this month long debate with you. Here is your explanation and then I'm done. You can have the last word if you want. WP:Weight says we include any and all criticisms that have recieved appropriate weight to be mentioned in an encyclopedia entry for a criticism of the religion of Judaism. That is our guide. That policy. We, as editors, have very limited decision making power regarding content. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One cannot apply the principle of WP:WEIGHT if one does not know beforehand what properly comprises criticism of Judaism, and no source is at all indicating that. If you know of such a source please bring it to our attention. Much of the discussion on this Talk page concerns itself with what properly constitutes criticism of Judaism. After establishing that, WP:WEIGHT would certainly be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, had you not noticed that half a dozen editors have, at various times or another, removed the very material you have now (yet again) reverted back into the article verbatim? The fact that they didn't care for any of your proposals, and didn't bother to comment on them, doesn't mean there was consensus for you to unilaterally restore all that material they removed. When a half dozen editors repeatedly remove material you add, and many of them object to it on the article Talk: page, you really should take it as an indication that they disagree with it being in the article, irrespective of any votes you have tried to run. In addition, I repeat yet again, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Stop using the article Talk: page as a platform for making comments about me, or (indeed), about any other editors. Discuss article content only. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a criticism being deleted if it is not within the scope of the article. What is the scope of the article? The only scope that has been proposed that is sensible and has been seconded by multiple editors is the consensus scope "A", above in the Talk page. If there is a specific criticism (in the article) that is not within that scope, I would be the first to remove it. Regarding "commenting on content": Im not sure what you are talking about. Your prior post said that there was no consensus on this article, and I disagreed, and backed up my claim with specifics of why the major dissenting voice (yours) did not obviate the consensus. Refer to Wikipedia:Silence and consensus for details. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, while you may "have no problem with a criticism being deleted if it is not within the scope of the article", and "would be the first to remove it", you do seem to have a problem with anyone actually restricting that scope or removing the inappropriate material. When you describe a scope as "sensible", you appear to mean "a scope that four inexperienced editors agree is sensible, and that six experienced editors agree is not sensible". Also, when you claim there is a "consensus on this article", that is only the case if you ignore the consensus at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#List of criticisms that much of the material in this article falls outside its scope. Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Material inappropriate for this article/scope is just a briefer restatement of that section and consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)