Talk:Independent minyan

Kelman vs. Kelma

Kelman is the correct spelling: see [1] and [2]. "Kelma" is a typo from the Washington Post article. Mahrabu (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for the correction! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent minyan "movement"

The characterization of independent minyanim as a "movement" is controversial, in part because the word "movement" in American Jewish life has strong connotations of "denomination" with a distinct religious ideology (see Jewish religious movements), but also because the independent minyanim are in fact independent, and not centrally coordinated (despite the existence of organizations that provide resources and networks for these communities). For more on this controversy, see [3], which summarizes a panel discussion whose audio is at [4]. In this discussion, Rabbi Kaunfer (whom this article imprecisely quotes as talking about a "movement") expressed opposition to the term "movement". So I'm editing references to the "movement", to bring the article more in line with a neutral point of view. Mahrabu (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would disagree, but it's not worth a fight! :) I am familiar with the "JCC Movement" (Jewish Community Center Movement)., which is a movement within Judaism that is not religious; and I grew up with the civil rights movement, which was not centrally controlled, but was a result of independent efforts "snowballing" into a movement as groups learned from each other and helped each other. I guess I'm just more comfortable with a broader reading of the word "movement" than those who are against it. However, what's important is not my feeling -- but the fact that the term is used in many references. For that reason, I would ask that you consider adding a couple of sentences mentioning the use of the term and the controversy, rather than deleting the phrase. But, I will agree to disagree, and bow to your judgment. I'm glad to start the article, and watch how it takes on a life of its own! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I'll put something in about the controversy. Mahrabu (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Always nice to deal with reasonable people, and find reasonable resolutions! I do think adding something about the disagreement over the term adds to the article. NearTheZoo (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrabu, thanks for the new information/section on "nomenclature," which I think is an important addition. I added some info about the JCC movement, because I happen to think it's the closest "movement" to the independent minyan movement -- because it is definitely not denominational. I also think many of us "old timers" who have been involved with the JCC movement are not bothered by the use of that term -- so I tried to soften your statement a little in terms of the number of people within American Judaism who identify "movement" and "denomination" as one. My hope is that I did not destroy any of the information you added, but instead helped clarify a point here or there. In any case, I think you added a lot! Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions! I don't think JCCs are more closely parallel than the havurah movement, since JCC is now a registered trademark of the JCC Association, so there is a central organization even if it's not a religious denomination. Mahrabu (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrabu, You could be right -however, the JCC Association is a central umbrella organization that eventually took shape as YMHAs, JCCs, and even Jewish camps started coming together and realized they could benefit from ties with each other. But, to my knowledge, no one ever objected to the term, "movement," as this coalition grew -- but that could be because it was clearly not in competition with any of the denominations. In any event, I think the article is getting better! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article?

I propose changing it from "Independent Minyan" to "Independent minyan", since this phrase is almost never capitalized except when it is in an all-capitalized title (e.g. Mechon Hadar's Independent Minyan Conference). Mahrabu (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Halakhic Minyan

Mahrabu, Just saw your recommendation that the section on the Guide for the Halakhic Minyan be moved to the Partnership Minyan article, rather than keep it here. Even though I'm getting ready to call it a night, I wanted to respond to say I would like to discuss this idea (and get input from others) before a decision is made -- so I appreciate your starting the discussion as a recommendation. I do think that perhaps the beginning of this article should be changed, to indicate that some independent minyanim strive for egalitarianism within a framework that does not generally adopt the "label" of one Jewish movement, while others strive for increased participation on the part of women within a framework still recognized as "Orthodox" -- and those latter minyanim are called "partnership minyans." Would you agree with this idea, or do you see independent minyan as only those that strive for egalitarianism? I look forward to continuing this discussion. After some consideration, I decided to move most of the section to a new page, "Guide for the Halakhic Minyan." I hope you and other editors will help flesh out that page. Please look at the brief explanation I have retained in the section on Partnership Minyanim and this Guide in this article (Independent Minyan), and let me know if you think this explanation is correct. Thanks as always for your help! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think partnership minyanim are a subset of independent minyanim: as far as I am aware (does anyone know of exceptions?), all partnership minyanim are independent (in the sense of not being affiliated with denominational organizations or brick-and-mortar synagogues), but not all independent minyanim are partnership. However, this subset relationship is an empirical result, not inherent to either definition. There could in principle be partnership minyanim affiliated with denominations (if any of the denominations would have them) and/or "partnership synagogues", and I expect that one day there will be. The "Guide for the Halachic Minyan" is relevant to these minyanim because of their partnership-ness, not because of their independence. Mahrabu (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrabu, Thanks, as always! Please look at the section again, and see if my rewrite is on target. You can see from the remarks I had originally written (above), but then struck through, that I started out thinking that partnership minyanim were a subset of independent minyanim -- but then realized that one of the three factors that Kaunfer used to define independent minyanim was "no denominational affiliation." I know you do not take his words as gospel, but many articles quote this description. Anyway, please check my rewrite and see if you think it is a fair description, using words like "many," instead of "all."

On the other hand, I am not sure ALL partnership minyanim identify themselves as orthodox or not.... MigdalOr is one that does. But I THINK the identification with orthodoxy is the difference between the overall indenpendent minyan and the sub-set, partnership. Is this what you think?

NearTheZoo (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good description. While some (not all) partnership minyanim may identify themselves as "Orthodox", that's not the same as being affiliated with denominational institutions (such as the OU), so I think they would still qualify as "no denominational affiliation" (though it's complicated, because "Orthodox" denominational identity is less tied to institutions than "Reform" or "Conservative" is). Mahrabu (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think partnership minyanim are defined by their practices - e.g. counting 10 men & 10 women as a minyan (as opposed to 10 people of any gender for an egal minyan, or 10 men for a fully non-egal minyan), identifying specific services that women (and sometimes men) may lead (as opposed to no distinctions in an egal minyan, or only men leading in a fully non-egal minyan). Some partnership minyanim do this because they're coming from Orthodoxy and want to increase women's participation within that framework, and others do it because they have diverse constituencies and they perceive these practices as a pluralistic compromise between egalitarian and non-egalitarian practices. Mahrabu (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrabu, Thanks for helping me work through this issue, and understand it better. This is the line from the wikipedia article on partnership minyanim that drives me to think it is the orthodox "link" that creates the partnership minyan as part of a subset of independent minyanim: "Partnership minyanim are a new and relatively small phenomenon within Modern Orthodox Judaism intended to provide more opportunity to Jewish women to participate in synagogue services and rituals." However, as the process of putting together this article on the Independent Minyan shows, wikipedia articles are often works in progress, struggling to state facts in better ways, but not always there yet.

In any event, unless you tell me differently, or change the wording in the article yourself, I'll consider the rewritten paragraph "close enough for government work," and think we are in agreement at this point. However, please let me know -- or make changes -- if you think more changes should be made. Thanks again. NearTheZoo (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent minyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111155609/http://www.mechonhadar.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=8e2def5c-17b6-4160-9fe3-874c9c9c3587&groupId=11401 to http://www.mechonhadar.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=8e2def5c-17b6-4160-9fe3-874c9c9c3587&groupId=11401

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Independent minyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]