Talk:Jewish religious movements

UK branches

Can someone do something about United and Federation Judaism in the UK (2 major branched of orthodox judaism here)

Those aren't Jewish denominations, but rather different Orthodox groups. Jayjg 02:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Movements v. Denominations

I object to the use of "denominations" ... I propose we use the term used in the Jewish community itself "movements" ... "Denomination" is a Christian construct and we should respect the Jewish etymology of movements. --Jon Cates 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"however"

"Some Jews felt that Enlightenment values, especially the incorporation of secular subjects into Jewish education, as well increased integration with the outside world, would bring much to Judaism. Others, however, noted that this same era allowed Jews, for the first time, the ability to easily assimilate into Christian society"

Either we take out "however", or we strengthen "allowed". As for my rephrase...well, the whole passage is weak. But I have a writer's tic against these sorts of passages... --VKokielov 04:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why must however be taken out, or allowed be strengthened? Could you explain please? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "however" juxtaposes the second sentence to the first, so it seems to me it doesn't go well with "allowed", because then why do we have "however" at all?

Some Jews felt the Enlightenment would have good effects, others felt it would have bad effects. I'm still not sure why this needs to change. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is when I have to stop, look myself over, and bite my lip. I understand now it's a question of taste and, even more, quality - an argument between the writers of an encyclopedia and someone else altogether...See, if I were writing about the Jews who "howevered" the Enlightenment, I wouldn't write about them this way. It captures nothing of their sentiment; it's dry, airless. But...this is an encyclopedia. You win. :D --VKokielov 20:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A footnote: to capture the sentiment artfully doesn't require taking a point of view. I think they call it the "third-person omniscient", that classical writer's tool. No good novelist to write this way has ever allowed himself to take a side; but no great novelist has ever written like in an encyclopedia. --VKokielov 20:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Population statistics?

I was wondering if there was a percentage breakdown of different denominations available? I've hunted around and can't find a comparison of population figures of different denominations, especially world-wide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djbell (talk • contribs) .

The idea of "denominations" is primarily a construct of certain elements of the Ashkenazi community, as the article lays out rather clearly. While non-Ashkenazim may be part of congregations adhering to some "denomination", however, most non-Ashkenazim, especially outside the US, do not. The concept of "denominations" therefore, is not a universal in Judaism and it is consequently impossible to come up with the kind of statistics one might be able to for Christianity or Islam.  :-\ Tomer^talk 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, this article itself is pointless. But evidently some people do find it useful to think of the issue in these terms. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask for this very thing. Knowing that 20% of Jewish people follow the Orthodox tradition would be very informative. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The population statistics here are not correct. More importantly, they do not really reflect the fact that such terms as Ashkenazi and Sephardic have dual meanings, as (historic) ethnic divisions and as religious minhagim. I think a better approach on this page would be to duck the issue, by referring the reader to main articles on other pages. If nobody objects after a month or so, I will rewrite this page to reflect that. --Metzenberg 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal:move Reconstructionist to the Alternative Judaism page

Reconstructionist Judaism does not adhere to Traditional Jewish principles any more than Pagan Judaism or Messianic Judaism. It should be moved from here to the Aternative judaism page .

I recommend taking it up at WP:JEW... Tomer^talk 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism

We see repeated attempts to add Messianics in all articles related to Judaism. Here, User:ChristTrekker is making such effort. "Messianic Jewish organizations, such as Jews for Jesus, often refer to their faith as fulfilled Judaism, in that they believe Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. Although Messianic Judaism claims to be Jewish, and many adherents observe Jewish holidays, most Jews regard Messianic Judaism as deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst. They charge that Messianic Judaism is actually Christianity presenting itself as Judaism." (Balmer, Randall. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, Nov 2004, p. 448). More quotes per request. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing MJ references from this article is not NPOV. Whether it objectively is, or whether most Jews think it is, "true Judaism" or not is beside the point. Someone wanting to learn how this sect fits into the grand scheme of Judaism as a whole would, quite reasonably, expect it to be found on a page detailing Jewish denominations. The fact is that MJ claims to be a type of Judaism, and thus should be listed on in an article that exists to list the types of Judaism! Especially when the controversial entry makes the point of noting the controversy! It's not like like there's a subversive agenda of disinformation at work (at least on behalf of the MJ faction). Continued wholesale removal of MJ references is blatant bias. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether MJs think they are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Remember, no original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We exist to distribute content that is verifiable. MJ is not a verifiable movement of Judaism and therefore has no place in articles about that subject. It is, however, a verifiable denomination of Christianity and has a real place in those articles. Let's say I'm a Pastafarian and I say Pastafarianism is a denomination of Buddhism. Just because I say it doesn't make it true and doesn't make it verifiable. While we evaluate each case on an individual basis, the criteria for inclusion into the Wikipedia are objective in nature. MJ is not, by any metric, a form of Judaism and therefore should not be considered thus for the purposes of the Wikipedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Karimarie is correct. MJ's claims belong on the page Messianic Judaism, but what they claim is not a good enough reason to list them here. Please review WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I can imagine someone with user name HeavensGateTrekker adding Heaven's Gate (cult) here if that sect claimed to be a denomination of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure those views will be presented on Messianic Judaism. But how is the ignorant reader supposed to find that page if certain logical startings points (like this one) suppress attempts to link to it? The entry here is not attempting to promote MJ or undermine other branches of Judaism. It merely seeks validation of its existence. I'm not asking for undue weight—not much more than a single-line entry with a link! If you want to talk about undue weight, look at samaritan, which asserts there are less than 1000 now. The entry here even says "sometimes not regarded as Jews". Is that not analogous to MJ? ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If some group like HG did claim to be a part of Judaism, and were legitimate enough to be taken seriously at all by the average joe, then by all means they should be listed here, if for no other reason than to state that their claims are rejected by most of the mainstream. Just FYI, the Christian denominations article does exactly this for groups outside what is generally regarded mainsteam (e.g. Latter Day Saints)—it doesn't censor them altogether. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not verifiable possibly because the rest of Judaism refuses to "verify" it based on political reasons? Historically, Judaism is a messianic religion. How can you exclude a group that claims to have found the awaited messiah? But that's beside the point. The fact is, this is not an issue of soapboxing—I'm not trying to "preach" messianicalism (or whatever you'd call it). I'm merely trying to advocate fairness. Any other nonstandard practice could crop up in Judaism, gain enough followers to be considered a "movement", and it would be listed here. Yet there are allegedly 50k Jews that believe Yeshua is messiah, and it is treated differently. Articles like this are the perfect place to discuss relationships between segments of the Jewish community—including those groups that perhaps a majority would consider heretical. In fact, it does so already, with regards to the Orthodox view of others. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not insert a link to MJ in every WP article, to help an "ignorant reader"? Seriously, your problem is not with WP, but with Judaism, a classic ancient system of belief based on its authoritative texts. May I respectfully suggest you do your Christ trekking someplace else. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't address my points, so you act ridiculously and tell me to go away. That's productive. How am I supposed to take you seriously? ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ChristTrekker, there are Jews who believe all kinds of things that aren't Judaism, since not all Jews follow Judaism. And none of it would belong in an article on Jewish denominations. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And according to the Orthodox, Reform Jews aren't following Judaism, either. Yet the Reform movement is retained in the article. As I mentioned above, Samaritans are included in the article, and that sect hasn't been considered part of Judaism for something like 2000 years? And they have significantly fewer adherents than the messianic movement? I see lots of double standards and little academic honesty. As many have said before, Judaism does recognize the concept of messiah—though what that means is open for debate. Various candidates have come and gone. One candidate has a large following, and has endured for 2000 years in some form or another. That in itself is significant. You may not like it, you certainly don't have to accept it personally, but it is noteworthy and should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No scholarly sources list Messianic Judaism as a Jewish denomination, it would be original research to include it. There are four modern main denominations that have emerged from within traditional Judaism along with various movements. You can read more details about the history/emergence of Jewish denominations in this online reprint from the scholarly source, The Jewish Religion: A Companion, by Dr. Louis Jacobs, published by Oxford University Press. The modern movement mislabeled "Messianic Judaism" has its origins in Christianity, not Judaism, which is why you won't find it listed under Judaism in any comparative religion textbook or history of Judaism. It is already mentioned in the Alternative Judaism article, for those "ignorant" readers you mention who might mistake it for Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be said, with a high level of accuracy, that Christianity had its origins in Judaism. Specifically that Christianity was originally messianic Judaism. So to say that MJ had roots in Christianity and not Judaism is not factual. One of the earliest debates in Christianity was whether or not gentiles should be allowed to participate. Followers of Yeshua were simply another Jewish sect. It was only when gentiles began to outnumber Jews that the two diverged significantly. Historically, Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, and the concept of Jewish followers of Yeshua has plenty of historical authenticity. The modern upswing of the Jewish roots movement (in Christianity) and the messianic movement (in Judaism) has illuminated that historical connection. Due to an intervening 1500 years of largely gentile Christendom, I can understand why Jewish scholars do not include messianics as a group within Judaism. But the fact remains that it is largely their perception that makes it so. There is no central tenet of Judaism that categorically states "if you think Yeshua is the messiah, you're out of the club". (Yes, I'm aware of the objections, so we needn't go into them.) Judaism awaits a messiah. Some Jews believe they've found one. Basically that's it. Also...if inclusion on alternative Judaism is sufficient reason to remove MJ from Jewish denominations, then surely you intend to be consistent by removing Jewish Renewal and Humanistic Judaism as well? I have no problem with listing the minor sects in a separate section/page, as long as there is consistency and not a double standard. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would favor removing Samaritans from this article. ChristTrekker, please do not turn this into a disputation: the more you insist, the more good faith you lose. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to insist that editors act fairly, in accordance with WP:NPOV. Double standards do not belong here—that is not in dispute. ⇔ ChristTrekker 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trekker, these talk pages are not here to debate our personal philosophies. Christianity diverged off into its own religion two millennia ago. No scholarly source would list Christianity or Messianic Judaism or any of its variants as Jewish denominations. As far as Jewish Renewal, it's more of a movement found within the other denominations, not really a denomination itself per se. Humanistic Judaism is quite small, but is often added as the fifth Jewish denomination [1]. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Trekker, there are very few things that all the Jewish denominations are in complete agreement on. One of the only things I can think of that all Jews seem to agree on is that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism, but rather a form of Christianity. --Metzenberg 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, Metzenberg. I'm damned sure you mean almost all. All Jews except for Messianic Jews (which are Jews according to Jewish law). And a number of non-religious/secular Jews. Oh yeah, and a number of liberal rabbis such as Dan Cohn-Sherbock and Carol Harris-Shapiro. You get the idea. ;) Noogster 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianity formally emerged in about 135 CE from the takeover of Jerusalem by corrupt Roman Hellenists, destroying the leadership of the Netzarim Yehudim (original Pharisaic followers of Ribi Yehoshua, or Yeshua in Aramaic, the "Apostles" being the first) and dispersing them. This became epitomized by the 4th century with the rise of Constantine, from who's pagan doctrines under pain of death all forms of Christianity now descend. It is almost diametrically opposite the original Jewish community of followers of Yeshua. Most segments of Messianic Judaism fail as miserably to be an accurate reconstruction of the 1st-century community of followers of Yehoshua Ha-Mashiakh (since at best they have a midway between Jewish and Christian practices) as Conservative Judaism entirely fails to be halakhic in its quest to be in between Reform and Orthodox (legitimate). For more info see http://netzarim.co.il And this is coming from a Messianic. Noogster 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scholars are divided as to whether to call Messianic Judaism a Christian or Jewish Sect" (Foreman, Esther (2006). "Messianic Judaism". In Clarke, Peter B. (ed.). Encyclopedia of new religious movements. London; New York: Routledge. p. 399. ISBN 9-78-0-415-26707-6.). DayakSibiriak (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed Secular Humanistic

I've removed the Secular Humanistic entry, and for good reason: there is not a more foundational principle in Judaism than the fact that there is a G-d. The two concepts are simply inseparable. It's like a car without its engine. Maybe someone has questions/comments about this, or thinks this a bad move (if so, address it here), but just like Messianic Judaism this is already listed in the Alternative Jewish movements article. Noogster 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.D. said in his edit summary: "I am an observant and believing Jew. But, objectively speaking, I agree that this article should include at least some reference to Humanistic Judaism." My question is, why should it be? If objectivity is your goal, why would you include the movement that rejects any concept of G-d, observance of the Torah, or traditional synagogal worship, while actively campaigning against the mention of Messianic Judaism, which does believe in G-d, promote observance of the Torah, and generally conducts services in a traditional synagogal environment. What I consider a "Jewish denomination" is relative to how many of Maimonides' 13 principles are followed; Messianic Judaism can be said to be in line with almost all of them, whereas Humanistic is in line with virtually none. Noogster 16:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. While Maimonides 13 principles have become a widely recognized statement about what the beliefs of traditional Judaism are, Rabbinical authorites have always agreed that there is no halakhic obligation to believe them. You are attempting to impose a Christian belief concept (a creed) as a test of which Jewish religious organizations are Jewish. --Metzenberg 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I "impose" nothing. It is well-understood by me that legitimacy in the Jewish community is primarily based on Orthopraxy (right practice) over Orthodoxy (right belief), a la Constantine. But there is simply no objective argument that allows the Humanistic movement to be categorized as a non-alternative Jewish movement. Without up, there is no down; without fuel, there is no fire; without G-d there is no Judaism. I am simply invoking Maimonides' 13 principles because there it is a good place to start when discussing the objectivity of this topic. Noogster 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. I added the sentence about klal Israel above. I would characterize Humanistic Judaism as being an organization that participates in some notion of klal Israel, and recognizes and studies the Torah and Jewish writings as the basis of Jewish history and culture, although without divinity. They are a small worldwide Jewish movement. Messianic Judaism is not a Jewish movement because it is not recognized as a part of klal Israel. Genook? (Yiddish, meaning enuff!) Let's move on. --Metzenberg 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not recognized by who? There is no uber beit din that decides such matters for the whole Jewish community. If anything, Humanistic is at least as opposed as MJ or more by any councils/arbitrators that decide what is and is not within acceptable bounds of Jewish practice. Noogster 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus on this matter amongst Jewish organizations and religious leaders. To the extent that there is any dissent at all on the issue, you might take that up on the Messianic Judaism page you have worked on, but not here. --Metzenberg 21:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know all religious Jewish leaders are rejecting the Secular Humanistic movement very strongly. Factually, Humanistic is tiny compared to Messianic, and has little or no potential to attract Jews that believe in G-d, so you won't see Jewish leaders mention it much. Noogster 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the consensus of Jewish leaders and organizations that Messianic Jews are Xtians. Humanist Judaism, and the other hand, are part of klal Israel. It appears to me that no matter how many times I answer you, you are going to come back for more, so I am not going to answer you any further. --Metzenberg 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to concede because you continue to avoid the essence of the question: Who in the world decides which minor movements identifying as Jewish are part of klal Israel, and which are not? Orthodox Rabbis would be my best guess, and they consider the Traditional Judaism movement to be apostasy, let alone Secular Humanistic. You refuse to admit that you have no sufficient answer that is able to rubber-stamp Secular Humanistic as a mainstream brand of Judaism while allowing Messianic Judaism or whatever have you to escape being considered under equal auspices, with any amount of objectivity. Noogster 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Norman Lamm is the President of Yeshiva University, and is about as mainstream as you can get in Modern Orthodox Judaism. Read this address (dated 1986) in which Lamm states his views on Orthodox recognition of non-Orthodox Jewish movements and leaders. [ http://www.yu.edu/lamm/seventy.html ] Lamm's address is a basic statement that Orthodox Judaism recognizes that other Jewish movements are klal Yisrael but nevertheless not halakhically legitimate. --Metzenberg 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Development of modern "denominations"

This represents a new organization of a former section: Broader historical framework to explain the development of the denominations.

• Response to Enlightenment in Europe
• Response to emigration from Europe and immigration into anglophone countries in which a Christian culture is dominant, but Jews have full civil and political rights.
• Response to new pressures of assimilation in these anglophone countries, which allow Jews full participation in society, in which Jews have found unprecedented acceptance.

There is a huge literature in each of the three areas. Can anyone think of any others. --Metzenberg 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Orthodox Judaism = non-compromised historically continued Judaism, whereas Reform = a total assimilation of Jewish values into secular western society, whereas Conservative attempts to find a midpoint between both. This is explained in some more detail here at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBkIEh9RpvM Noogster 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Noogster. You lack the knowledge and the neutrality to make any further contributions to this page. Please go elsewhere. --Metzenberg 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Haskalah or Jewish Enlightenment

This section, which was written before I started to work on this page, is unsourced, and it contains many factual errors. Therefore, I am simply going to remove the material that used to be here. Here are some examples of the factual errors that this section formerly contained:

• Reform Judaism did not "spread throughout Europe" before coming to America. Indeed, it never spread to the Austrian Empire, Poland, or Russia. It was the dominant form of Judaism in America before the arrival of large numbers of Russian and Polish Jews, beginning about 1880.

• Conservative Judaism was not a split from Reform Judaism. To the contrary, it was a movement of formerly Orthodox Yeshiva trained Jews who wanted a more modern approach to Judasim but rejected some of the innovations of Reform Judaism. --Metzenberg 05:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true. In Europe, Reform Judaism was a German phenomenon that spread west-ward. Also, Conservative Judaism was a reaction to Reform Judaism, not a split from it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Reconstructionist movement

The article says the Reconstructionists "formally separated" from the Conservative movement in the 1980s. Is that right? The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation was founded in 1955, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College was established in 1968, and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association in 1974. [2] I'm not sure if any of those events might qualify as a "formal separation," but I would say that the separation was earlier than the 80s. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There was definite contention as early as Mordecai Kaplan even entered the Conservative movement. However, yes, the formal split of Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, and the conscious decision to develop the two movements entirely independent of one another's authority, was in the 1980's. Note that from my perspective, neither are legitimate/halakhic forms of Judaism because Judaism is historically non-negotiable (i.e. non-selective Torah observance; Orthodoxy) and fully centered around the communal worship of G-d (Reconstructionist), though that's not relevant here. Noogster 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Noogster. I don't mean to be obnoxious, but your message demonstrates a deep ignorance of Jewish religious history.

* Kaplan was ordained at JTS, the Conservative movement's seminary, so there wasn't contention "as early as [he] entered the Conservative movement."

* "Judaism is historically non-negotiable" -- I don't even know where to begin. Judaism and halakha have been evolving for more than 2000 years. There are religious "obligations" that have been "interpreted out" of the Torah -- have you heard about the slaying of any disobedient children lately? -- and some things that are permitted in Ashkenazi tradition are not allowed in Sephardic and vice versa.

* Your "perspective" that the Conservative movement isn't halakhic suggests that you know very little about that movement. The Conservative movement is indeed a halakhic movement, although its view is that the historical evolution of halakha has been retarded -- and in some ways reversed -- in the modern age by the rigidity of the Orthodox movements, in reaction to Reform Judaism and other contemporary pressures. I could cite dozens of examples of this phenomenon, but I have better ways to spend my time. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Founded in America" ?

This article says that Conservative Judaism was "[f]ounded in the United States." Conservative Judaism says the movement "developed in Europe and the United States." Reconstructionist Judaism describes Reconstructionism as "the only major movement of Judaism to originate in North America." It's been a long time since I studied the history of the various Jewish movements and I don't remember all the details, but I hope somebody can nail down the facts so all three articles can be made consistent with one another. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism had philosophical antecedents in Germany. These are often stated in histories of the Conservative movement. The first expression of a Conservative viewpoint is often dated to Rabbi Zecharias Frankel in Germany, in 1845, when he withdrew from the German Reform movements, stating his reasons. As his wikipedia article currently states, "Frankel was the founder and the most eminent member of the school of historical Judaism, which advocates freedom of research, while upholding the authority of traditional Jewish belief and practice. This school of thought was the intellectual progenitor of Conservative Judaism." But the actual institutions of Conservative Judaism were founded in the United States. The beginning of Conservative Judaism was the opening of Jewish Theological Seminary. However, Conservative Judaism was a tiny movement until Solomon Schechter was recruited to serve as chancellor of JTS early in the 20th century. See Rabbi Neil Gillman's History of Conservative Judaism (Conservative Judaism: The New Century), which is referenced from the page about Rabbi Gillman here on Wikipedia. Portions of the book, which is short, are available to read online at the JTSA website. --Metzenberg 01:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Karaite Judaism

Both Encyclopedia Britannica and the Jewish Encyclopedia use the term 'Karaism'. The term 'Karaite Judaism' seems to have been invented by Karaites in recent years. As such it is not widely accepted and is in breach of WP:NPOV--Redaktor 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really don't have Both Encyclopedia Britannica and the Jewish Encyclopedia, so I can't tell you what they say.

Karaite Judaism or "Yahadut Karait" (יהדות קראית) was an old term that was used to describe the Jewish belief that does not accept the oral law.

This term is used by The Encyclopaedia of Judaism Volume IV by Meira Polliack's book 'Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources' (Brill Press, 2003) and of curse by many Hebrew books and Encyclopedias.

If you want to say that Karaite Judaism is not part really "Jewish" as you said before (and that's why you want not to write the word "Judaism" - this is going to be WP:NPOV.

I know that you are ultra-Orthodox as you wrote. And I know that some of the ultra-Orthodox think that many non-orthodox Jewish movements are not really Jewish, but here it is un-acceptable. --Neria 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word Karaism? Is it POV? nadav (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the links: Britannica, Jewish Encyclopedia. nadav (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(attempt at) toning down blatant POV

This article is so riddled with OR and blatant POV pushing that it's not funny. I've been working on polishing it to remove at least the POV aspect, but other members persist on reverting my edits. I would appreciate it if they would discuss their criticisms on the talk page 1st, before reverting. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please enumerate all the specific changes in wording that you want. Edit warring will not get us anywhere. nadav (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits are consistent: to remove the blatant POV pushing in this article (aside from the blatant OR nature of it) that says that Orthodox Judaism considers reform and conservative as legitimate "branches," "denominations," or whatever of Judaism, when that's simply not true. Orthodox Judaism considers reform and conservative utterly illegitimate deviations from Judaism, and doesn't recognise them as "branches" and "denominations" at all. This fact should not be glossed over in an article whose very name pushes this POV. I entered changes in wording, and those who wish to change them need to justify their changes first. I demand to have my edits reverted back, and not have people ganging up on me and reverting me just because there are more of them than me. Yehoishophot Oliver 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, helloo? Anyone there? I've explained my reasons for my edits. If no one sees fit to explain why they disagree with me, then I will go right back and replace my edits. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the Orthodox accept the other movements; in fact, it says "the sharpest theological division occurs between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews who adhere to other denominations." If the POV and OR bother you so much, nominate the article for deletion instead of using it as a vehicle for your POV-pushing. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. Why don't you address the issue? Fine, there's one sentence that's somewhat intellectually honest (though not really, because it doesn't communicate the fact that from the perspective of of Orthodox Judaism the R and C religions--as opposed to their members, which I'm not discussing here--are simply not Jewish, full stop), but the rest blatantly ignores the position of Orthodox Judaism. You've said nothing to justify your reversion of my edits, which were intended to bring balance and intellectual honesty to the article. Yehoishophot Oliver 17:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We can have a sentence somewhere to the effect of "Orthodox Judaism considers the other branches as illegitimate interpretations of the Jewish tradition," but we can't rewrite the article to present everything only from the Orthodox point of view. I do think we should have a section dedicated just to relations between the groups, with a lot more info on how the groups see and interact with each other. nadav (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nadav. This article, as a purely descriptive matter, needs to be "neutral" as among the movements of Judaism. (Consider how bizarre it would be, for example, for a Wikipedia article about the various branches of Christianity to be written from a Catholic point of view that treated Protestants as schismatic or from a Protestant point of view that treated Catholics as idolaters.) Moreover, if we're going to discuss how the various movements view each other, it would also help, for the sake of completeness, also to mention the degree to which at least classic nineteenth-century Reformers considered Orthodoxy to be essentially illegitimate and anachronistic. (Conversely, many Modern Orthodox thinkers have articulated highly respectful views of Conservative and Reform Judaism.) More generally, within each of the movements, one can find both critiques and tolerance or even appreciation of the others. P.D. 19:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As P.D. wrote, the Conservative movement's position is that Orthodox Judaism is a reactionary movement that arose in response to the Haskalah and the Reform movement, and Orthodox Judaism also suggests that it grew from the Enlightenment experience in Germany, so the statement that all three major Jewish movements result from the Haskalah cannot be rejected as wholly untrue. From the Conservative viewpoint, the reactionary Orthodox movement ossified and retarded (and in some cases reversed) the 2000-year-old process in which halakha has evolved, and Conservative Judaism is the modern practitioner of that rabbinic process. But writing the article from that POV would be inappropriate, because it's not NPOV. Neither is the assertion that Conservative and Reform Judaism are "so-called denominations" but Orthodox Judaism isn't, or that Conservative and Reform Judaism are inferior to Orthodox Judaism or "deviations from true Judaism," or that Conservative and Reform Judaism "appear to share" Jewish values with Orthodox Judaism. These are among the edits you have tried to make to this article, and they represent POV, and venomous POV at that. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking only at the recent edit reversions, I prefer Redaktor's version. Yes, the Haskalah greatly affected Judaism of that time, but it is absurd not to admit that that form of Judaism is preserved relatively faithfully in what's now been dubbed "orthodoxy." Modern Orthodoxy and all kinds of similar movements are more directly offshoots of Haskala ideas, but collectively "orthodox Judaism" is defined only by its adherence to Halacha, which is what also defined the formal Jewish religion the day before the Haskala began. nadav (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. From my POV, Orthodox Judaism can be defined by its rigid adherence to nineteenth-century halakha. In any event, there was no Orthodox movement until the Enlightenment. I tried to edit the lede to say that. Maybe the new language is an improvement. Maybe not. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A big problem with Redaktor's and Yehoishophot Oliver's versions is the last 2/3 of the lede. If the second paragraph is only about non-Orthodox movements, the rest of the lede is unclear. Do the bullet points describe the non-Orthodox movements, or do the Orthodox also share those values? The first mention of Orthodox Judaism is the last sentence, which mentions the theological divide between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your recent edit handles all the issues well. nadav (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that changing the focus a little, from the establishment of the movements to the division of Judaism into different movements, will satisfy everybody. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said to write the article from an Orthodox POV. I said that it shouldn't be written in a way that shows a definite bias against that point of view, and precludes and misrepresents it, which is currently the case. E.g.,

1. it is not true that Orthodox Judaism recognises that it has something in common with reform; it doesn't and this is POV to suggest that it does. The article should say "appears to share" at best, instead of imposing its point of view that it does in fact share these values. 2. I never said to say that Conservative and Reform are deviations, I said to clarify that they are from the vantage point Orthodox Judaism. 3. Conservative and Reform should be referred to as "so-called denominations" because Orthodox doesn't recognise them as such. It shouldn't be stated without qualification that they are denominations, because that's imposing the Conservative and Reform POV. Yehoishophot Oliver 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Orthodox movement is not the goddamned Sanhedrin. Its practitioners don't make Halakha and they don't get to decide who is or is not a Jew or expressing Judaism in a valid way.CharlesMartel (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CharlesMartel

1)I have sources that indicate mainstream orthodoxy does believe it shares the value of tikkun olam with reform, though its approach to it obviously differs. 2) This should be added in the section I suggested. Feel free to start work on a section devoted to how the groups see each other. 3) This cannot be done in the lead. Sociologists would never ever use this "so-called", and in the end that's what we are trying to emulate. Once we have a long section explaining how the groups see each other, then we can give a nice summary of it in the lead, and this will explain everything you want it to. nadav (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2. I'm not familiar with such sources; they would need to prove that reform and c. have more of a similarity with Orthodox Judaism than any other religion.

3. I've replaced so-called with other terms now. Tell me what you think. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think introducing weasel words is the answer. We need to be much more precise and clinical. I suggest that instead of talking immediately about the supposed branches of Judaism, we talk instead about the groups of Jewish people. We can say something like "Jewish people are subdivided into several religious movements" or "Modern day Jewry encompasses several different religious movements that each claim a measure of continuity from of the Jewish religion." You get my drift. How's that? nadav (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But Jewish people are not divided into several religious movements. Ever see a table of belief in the U.S.? Jews are way at the bottom. A large precentage of Jews are not members of a movement. Heck, a large number of American Jews practice other religions!Mzk1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Table of Jewish denominations

This table is wildly unrepresentative, giving more weight to movements representing less than 20% of Jewry in England and Israel than to the remaining 80%.--Redaktor 10:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The function of the table, as I understand it, is conceptual and terminological rather than demographic. It has a horizontal dimension -- to draw a very rough conceptual map of the various positions within the larger Jewish community and their relation with each other. It also has an even more useful vertical dimension -- to help readers translate terms from one country from another. (For example, it is useful to know that the "Reform" movement in the United States corresponds to the "Liberal" movement in the UK, or that the "Conservative" movement in the US corresponds to the "Masorti" movement in Israel.) I do think that the table could be improved significantly. For example, the "Reform" movement in the UK does not really correspond to US Reconstructionists; it is actually closer to "left-wing" Conservatism in the US, while the UK "Masorti" movement is closer to what some in the US call "Conservadox." Maybe down the road, when the current dust-up settles down, someone with more technical expertise than I have about how to draw tables in Wikipedia could try to add some of these nuances into the table.P.D. 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing looks like a big pile of original research to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hasidic/Haredi Jews more traditional than "regular" orthodox

Saying Hasidic/Haredi Jews are more tradition than "regular" Ashkenazim in America or Moroccans in Israel is just plain wrong. Rabbi Soloveitchik comes from a line of direct succession from Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna. Their law is more in line with Medievil traditional views. For example, the case of teffilin on Moed is in line with the views of the traditional authorities, hilkhot gedolot, the rif, the rambam, and the rosh. As opposed to the typical Hasidic/Haredi view which is in line with slightly less traditional sources such as Rabbenu Bachya and the Ari. While there are many Haredim who do accord with the more traditional view they are limited to a large section of Litvaks. I will post another example with sources later tonight. 84.228.179.49 (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose moving this article

I propose renaming this article "Jewish religious movements". I think "Jewish denominations" is a neologism. I would also point to Relationships between Jewish religious movements. What do others think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Malik Shabazz - the question "what denomination (of Judaism) are you?" would probably never occur. However, it would be more realistic to describe one's 'movement'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong figures

The article states that: "Ashkenazi communities compose about 42% of the world's Jewish population, and Sephardic communities compose about 37%. Of the remainder, the Mizrahi Jewish communities—the "Arab" and "Persian" Jews—compose the greatest part, with about 16% of the world's Jewish population. Together these ethnic groups compose 95% of the world's Jewish population."

This is wrong. These figures are for *Israel* not the world Jewish population. World Jewish population is about 75% Ashkenazi. I will change it unless someone disagree. 85.250.74.39 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

hasidic = orthodox ?

from the article "all the sects of Hasidic Judaism have been subsumed theologically into mainstream Orthodox Judaism, " I think this is t0o strong - I am certainlyh not knowledgable to correct this, but the wiki article on hasidic judaism agrees with me.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not too strong. All forms of Hasidic Judaism indeed are part of Orthodox Judaism. Indeed, all forms of Hasidic Judaism are part of Haredi Judaism, ultra-Orthodox Judaism. There are no organized forms of Hasaidic otherwise that fit into any other category - although of course such forms could in theory exist. In fact, most religious scholars view the original Hasidic Judaism as non-Orthodox Judaism. It was a form of halakhic Judaism that allowed wide variations in theology and practice, but it rapidly came within the dominion of Orthodoxy. There are many individual Jews today who consciously adopt Hasidic customs, practices, prayerbooks, but this is not an organized Jewish religious movement. RK (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All forms of Hasidic Judasim today may indeed be part of Haredi Judasim, although that would need to be proven. But it certainly was not always so. The town just north of me, Kiryat Ata, was founded by Zionist Hasidim. I am sure, BTW, that the Besht would rather disagree with the "scholars", who appear to agree with his opponents; of course the term Orthodox did not yet exist.Mzk1 (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Major terminology change: Conservative Judaism is not the Conservative movement

This may interest editors of this article. I propose that we need to make a subtle, but important terminology change in this article, and in other articles closely related to this subject. The Conservative movement is a very widely used term in the Jewish community for a subset of Conservative Judaism.

The phrase Conservative Judaism refers to a rather broad religious movement within Judaism. Many statements by Conservative rabbis (especially Ismar Schorsch and Jack Wertheimer), academic Jewish scholars, such as Daniel J. Elazar and Rela M. Geffen, as well as many Orthodox rabbis recognize that Conservative Judaism is more than just groups formally affiliated with the Conservative movement. Schorsch and Wertheimer have repeatedly noted that most of Conservative Judaism's most recognized success stories involve people who choose not to formally join the Conservative movement. They include in this category the Union for Traditional Judaism, the Chavurah movement, non-affiliated traditional synagogues, and many synagogues which advertise as being "non-denominational".

• The Union for Traditional Judaism is especially important to note: At the time that this group came into being, they clearly stated that they were still practicing Conservative Judaism; they simply were disaffiliating from the Conservative movement. Since that time they have not changed their halakhic practices or their theology. So how are they not still Conservative Judaism? In fact, they are still Conservative Judaism - and their synagogues still use Conservative siddurim and machzorim (e.g. the Silverman edition); they still use Conservative Jewish texts from JTS Press and the Rabbinical Assembly, and they still use Isaac Klein's Guide to Jewish Religious Practice. (This is why no Orthodox Jewish group formally accepts the UTJ as part of Orthodox Judaism.)

• A good example of a non-affiliated chavurah that is recognized as Conservative Judaism is Kehilat Hadar, in Manhattan, NY. Most of its members even come from Conservative Jewish homes. A recent article quotes Rabbi Ismar Schorsch. Most interestingly, it quotes a Rabbi Elie Kaufner, who states that it doesn't advertise as being "Conservative" for membership purposes, not for theological or halakhic reasons!

"Hadar is interested in welcoming Jews of all backgrounds," says Elie Kaunfer, one of the congregation's founders and a rabbinical student at JTS. "If Hadar were to call itself Conservative, it would be harder for people who identify as Orthodox or Reform or identify as 'not Conservative' to come. The more you label yourself, the harder it is to cast a wide net."

"The question people are asking today is not, 'How do I become a Conservative Jew?'" Waldoks says. "The question is, 'Why be Jewish?'". Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of JTS, claims that the Conservative movement, which he heads, is the primary source for the religious energy of post-denominationalism. He points to Hadar as an example. "The Hadar movement could not be mistaken for anything but a Conservative synagogue: It's fully egalitarian and seriously Jewish. The ritual is neither Reform nor Orthodox; it's quintessentially Conservative," Schorsch says.

"The young people at Hadar are intellectually Conservative and they are ritually Conservative except they are advanced Conservative Jews rather than entry-level Conservative Jews. They wish to distinguish themselves from the materialistic, bourgeois synagogues of suburbia."

Jerusalem Post Magazine, Feb 11, 2005

http://www.kehilathadar.org/Aboutus/jpost02-11-05.html

• Rabbi Elie Kaunfer, executive director of Mechon Hadar, in New York, sees the beliefs and practices of Conservative Judaism thriving even while the brand name of the Conservative movement, specifically its institutions, is in a period of decline:

Bemoaning the decline of Conservative Judaism misses the point. This decline is a problem for the survival of Conservative institutions that are supported primarily by brand loyalty. But if the true mission of Conservative Judaism is to foster an engaged and empowered Jewish community with a commitment to Torah and mitzvot, declining affiliation may actually be positive. It signals an age in which Jews care enough about their expression of Judaism to resist an ill-defined label. What is the role for Conservative institutions in this new reality? Three suggestions: Lose the “Label yourself Conservative” mentality. Try instead: We encourage Jews to seek meaningful, empowered engagement with Judaism. Wherever that leads, we trust them, even if it is outside the Conservative menu of options.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11511/

• Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, is quoted in an article about the proliferation of supposedly non-denominational, and certainly non-affiliated minyanim and chavurot. What they have in common is that they are usually led by Conservative Jews, and their practices and theology are also Conservative Judaism. In response to this Rabbi Epstein states:

Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, laments the fact that many minyan participants come from Conservative backgrounds but find the movement lacking as they conceive of their adult prayer experiences. “I think people are really looking for an ideology, many of them, a practice that is somewhere in the framework known as Conservative Judaism, but they don’t find it in their Conservative synagogues,” says Rabbi Epstein, who urges the leaders of minyanim to hold their services in and otherwise affiliate with Conservative synagogues, rather than use the churches or community centers many choose.

Minyanim Grow Up, Turn Inward New York Jewish Week, 11/25/08

This article should recognize that the term Conservative movement refers to a well-defined subset of organizations and individuals that are within Conservative Judaism, such as the Rabbinical Assembly, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and all other organs within the LCCJ.

For a detailed discussion of this issue please see The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities, SUNY Press, by Daniel J. Elazar and Rela M. Geffen. RK (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am not trying to "prove" that all of these movements (Chavurah, UTJ, post-denominational, etc.) are part of Conservative Judaism. In fact, no one can strictly "prove" that any particular group is "truly" Reform, or "truly" Orthodox, either! I have seen countless attacks on Orthodox groups and individuals by other Orthodox Jews; and the same within the Reform Jewish community. Rather, I am saying that we must describe the fact that these groups are widely recognized by both Orthodox and Conservative Jews as being part of Conservative Judaism, even though they are not formally a part of the Conservative Movement. Indeed, that is already what we for Orthodox Judaism: We don't pick one organizations structure (e.g. RIETS, YU and the RCA) and made that equivalent to all of Orthodox Judaism, and then label all other Orthodox groups as non-Orthodox. Rather, we have always defined Orthodox Judaism as a school of thought, with a range of theologies and practices, and then described in an NPOV fashion the groups that are widely recognized as Orthodox. Now we should do the same with Conservative Judaism. RK (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things. One: you're missing a word in "Indeed, that is already what we for Orthodox Judaism". "Do"? Two: the distinction between Conservative Judaism and the Conservative Movement is spurious. UTJ, for example, does not consider itself Conservative. You can claim that these groups are widely recognized as being Conservative, and you can claim that this is a fact. But that's inadmissible on two grounds: (a) it's OR, and (b) the groups themselves would dispute it.

I'll oppose any attempt to make this sort of change. Perhaps a better place to argue your case would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism‎. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me add that personally, outside of a Wikipedia context, I'd be happy to adopt the change you're suggesting, for the simple reason that I'm tired of hearing people claim that Conservative is halakhic. Given your definition, we can simply recognize the fact that 90%+ of Conservative Jews don't keep any kind of kosher whatsoever, and that 97%+ don't keep the laws of family purity, and that it's about as halakhic as Reform. It hasn't gone unnoticed that the Conservatives claim all these people when they want to boast about their numbers, yet read them out whenever they want to claim to be a halakhic movement. Your change would make that a little more difficult for them to pull off, so I like it. But it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, more's the pity. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're delving into the world of the personal on this talk page, what are 'the laws of family purity'? Made me think Nürnberg. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tikun Olam

Tikun Olam is now a basic part of all types of Judaism? After all of those years in Yeshivot of several sorts (inlcuding Y.U.), this is news to me. As far as I can tell, it is another attempt to replace the Torah with the platform of the Democratic party. Yes, some Orthodox groups have used it, but universally recognized as basic? Hardly!

Any shared values? Monotheism, I guess. (So far.) The strong should help the weak. Anything else? Maybe just stick to history and not try to find anytihng in practice.Mzk1 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is historically voluntary and has no dogma?

I have only refrained from deleting the following paragraph because it might reflect consensus. However, I will do so soon if someone doesn't justify it:

Religiously speaking, most Jewish communities have historically held that there is no relevant role for "dogma"; rather, there is halakha (Jewish law) only. The extent to which every Jew as an individual adheres to Jewish law has long been regarded as a matter of personal preference, although the idea has always been prominent that every Jew should be as observant of the laws as they are able.

This strikes me as not only very POV, but contradicted by the Bible, the Talmud, the entire Mishnah Torah of Maimonides, and the various revival movements in Jewish history, which often contained decrees to strengthen observance.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish religious movements. 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/20040104022259/http://hebrewcollege.edu/hct/spring-summer_2003/insight/answers.html to http://hebrewcollege.edu/hct/spring-summer_2003/insight/answers.html

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, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jewish religious movements. 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/20050311133354/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/ModernReligionCulture/Emergence.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/ModernReligionCulture/Emergence.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110062538/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Jewish_World_Today/Denominations.htm to http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Jewish_World_Today/Denominations.htm

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) 04:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources

DayakSibiriak In this edit a lot of information was added. First of all, the addition sound a bit like advertising, and might need some reducing to be neutral. Secondly, the information was added in front of sources, giving the impression that it can be found in those same sources. I that indeed so? Debresser (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, this short supplement on Reform is nothing more than common information in the sources. If something looks not neutral, I'l be grateful for the correction. According to my plan, another 1-2 days and I'm completing the revision of this article, supply it with academic sources, and so on. DayakSibiriak (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed that addition for the time being, as 1. you admit here it is a WP:SYNTH violation. 2. It reads like a personal statement of faith, not neutral, in violation of WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Syncretic section

I don't think British Israelism, Christian Identity, French Israelism, and Nordic Israelism qualify as Jewish religious movements.Editor2020 (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So think I. British, Black Israilites, and other judaizers, are Christian sects, new religions and so on. DayakSibiriak (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Crypto-Judaism is not contemporary movement

The section on Crypto-Judaism as a historical phenomenon can be left in the article, but should be removed from the section "List of contemporary movements", namely living. Based on the near unsourced page Crypto-Judaism, it is history. Who secretly confesses today? Many are already Christians, who wanted cameback to Judaism. This is a deinformation reader that supposedly still exists today. DayakSibiriak (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

masorti ≠ conservative

conservative is more comparable to dati le'umi. Masorti, in some ways, are less religious than reform (for example, many masorti only go to prayers a few times a year as opposed to every week, like reform jews). Emdosis (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)