Talk:Judaism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

"Jewish community" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jewish community and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#Jewish community until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

History

Why does the history section end at 200 CE? Furius (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Because few editors are family with the topic, or history. Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Because as the hat note at the top/beginning of the section explains that the main article on this subject is Jewish history. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

infobox debate

There is a debate going on here that will affect this article. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV undue weight

Concerning the usage of Yahwism and tiny minority views, especially in the first paragraph and under the "Origins" heading.

In the first paragraph (summary paragraph) the POV of a small minority is mentioned, using the quantifying term of "some [scholars]" and intertwining it with an opposing POV. NPOV specifically mentions undue weight. Giving a tiny minority opinion gives undue weight. Including it in a sentence with opposing views makes the article unclear. The viewpoint should be listed under "see also." In addition, when searching for the word "Yahwism" in the article it is not an intricate part of the article - also under "separated from" which further supports this term has been given undue weight. In a related issue, several parts under the "Origins" heading need citation.

Please fix this, and make the article clear and focused on the topic and not rare POVs. Please give Yahwism and ideas of origins the correctly due weight for the small minority viewpoint. Hewritespoetry (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Gatekeeping the “Judaism” Article from Jewish Editors

This page is severely lacking in accurate information about Judaism, and presently has locked-out Jewish editors who have firsthand knowledge and reputable peer-reviewed factual sources. There is more prejudicial and harmful misinformation in the opening paragraph and info boxes, than actual information. At best, it’s demoralizingly confusing for any reader, deprives all of the most basic knowledge and understanding, and presently serves no religious community nor human being of any and/or no religion whatsoever. This does a disservice to Judaism and Wikipedia, and is causing harm to minority communities every day this article remains in the public sphere in it’s present iteration.

First and foremost, it’s structured in a way that shapes an individual religion, Judaism, into nothing but an extension of, and prelim to, Christianity. Due to the heightened state of Antisemitism globally at this dire time in history, I’m asking that this page be opened up to Jewish editors. I can only imagine the amount of vandalism this page is a target for, but the fact that I can’t edit this page and contribute accurate information on the subject matter at hand with factual sources, of which the Christian bible is not, is unacceptable for an encyclopedic project.

The irony of being gatekept from correcting any of the problematic elements, is not lost on me.

So please, who holds the keys, and how can I go about rendering this article closer to representing the actual topic at hand.

The only talk topics thus far, serve to demonstrate the very ignorance and agendas fueling the disinformational output that society’s viewing as an encyclopedic resource and knowledge-base. For example: “Yahwism” has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism. That is Evangelical Christian-Zionism. “Yahweh” is not a Hebrew word, and is not used in Judaism at all —- let alone as a name for God. God’s name is too holy to speak; we do not know God’s real name. I’ll gladly post all of those “names” and their translations the moment whoever locked this page allows Jewish editors to contribute. The languages named in the infobox are incorrect. The beliefs are incorrect to put it mildly. The dates and population data are highly prejudiced (I’m really trying to not get offended by what amounts to an article literally desecrating and defaming my religion and my community), and are indisputably proven by well-known and frequently cited historical documentation of late-Bronze Age Egyptian documents that first mention the Jewish people in Egypt in 1800 BCE. This is just archeological evidence of Jewish existence dating back over 4200 years post-Jews being sold into slavery. Global census data and studies on Jewish population numbers put the number of followers of Judaism at approx 16 Million (up to 18 Million — with large variance in self-reporting due to lack of Jewish participation in census questions about religious affiliation due to fear of persecution, as census data was weaponized under European governments in the 20th century) in the United States alone. Instead, this number currently rests at only 14 Million globally on this page. I could go on at length, but there’s no point when I could simply contribute to righting these wrongs. Sourcing from Chabad is not correct, either. Chabad is Hasidic Ultra-Orthodox Judaism; a sect which represents less than 1% of Judaism worldwide as-of 2020. Orthodox Judaism is also only 10% worldwide. This means 90% of Judaism is split between Conservative and Reform Judaism — with Reform more than doubling the Conservative population in every country. Sects of Judaism are incorrectly defined and misunderstood by their naming. Reform Judaism is not less religious, and the movement is over 400 years old. Jewish sects also go by completely different names in Israel than in the United States, Europe, and Latin America; and there are rich variations in tradition, culture, worship, and language throughout the Middle Eastern Mizrahi and Sephardic communities as well as the Ladino communities throughout the Americas (North, Central, and South America).

If this article is to be anything more than the “telling” of what Judaism is and isn’t from the Christian Bible, it needs to change, and change now. No religion’s doctrine can dictate nor define another religion. Judaism existed long before that re-telling was written, with the intent of creating prejudice and resentment against Jews. Minorities need representation and a voice on their own Wikipedia pages. Trying to shape an article based on fundamentally Christian ideals, and editors openly talking about contacting “Chabad Rabbis” thru a website form with questions to use as a “source” for this article, not only falls short of Wikipedia’s most basic standards, but fails the tenants of humanistic integrity. You have knowledgeable Jewish editors trying to contribute, why not allow them to have the same rights as the non-Jewish editors rewriting Judaism itself by way of Wikipedia? Enough is enough. AmericanHistory.exe (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

AmericanHistory.exe, this page is not locked to keep out Jewish editors, it's semi-protected to prevent vandalism. If your account is more than 4 days old and has made more than 10 edits to Wikipedia, you can edit this page. I'm leaving a note on your talk page with some other links that might be useful as you begin editing Wikipedia, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions along the way! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Jewishm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jewishm and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 29#Jewishm until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@TartarTorte Just like everyone join the discussion 😜 178.246.80.154 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Judaism on Sin and L-D Punishment

Sent following query at Ask A Rabbi Chadbad date 07/04/2022 ID 5659671 Q Query on sin and the L-Ds Punishments does the L-D always punish those who refuse to repent on the parts of their bodies they have sinned with? For examples Eli the Priest saw that his sons were sinning yet he only made a futile rebuke..thus his descendants at the L-Ds Alter were sentenced to view the alter with eyes of consumming greed and Eli himself went blind or Samson who married non Jewish Philistine women and was blinded by the Palestines? Please correct me if this theroy is mistaken

on 07.05.2022 received a reply to query B”H HI I am smart. All the best, Rabbi Eliezer Zalmanov For Chabad.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.203.204 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

All of this is disinformation and has nothing to do with actual Judaism. If you don’t understand Judaism, please do not touch an encyclopedia page. “L-D Punishments?” What does that mean? There’s no such thing. We are not a religion based on “Sin” nor “punishment” whatsoever. Jewish “laws” aren’t actual “laws,” that’s just the closest word to translate to in the English language, that can’t be understood in the context of a literal “law.” There are “rules” that simply outline which prayer is said on what occasion and how, holidays, hygienic and dietary “laws” and “rituals,” etc. If you don’t comply with very serious “laws,” then the “punishment,” if that’s how one chooses to see it, is simply not being Jewish anymore. For example: If you believe in more than one God, you’re not Jewish. There’s absolutely no means for punishing anyone, and 99% of the global Jewish population is not Hasidic (ultra-orthodox —- which is what Chabad is), but assimilated, and thus cannot “shun” anyone if they decide to no longer be Jewish. Your own beliefs are being projected onto another religion. Judaism is fundamentally different from Christianity in every way imaginable. You have to remove all of your core beliefs to understand a very simple religion: Judaism.

And again, I will reiterate — Chabad is not a source, and Hasidism (Chabad is American Hasidic-Judaism) accounts for only 1% of the world’s Jewish population. 99% of Jews do not practice Judaism that reflects Hasidism’s radically different belief-system and way of life. They’re still a sect, but you’re over representing them, and thus not allowing Judaism to be represented. They are the most zealot extremist form of Judaism on Earth. There’s also no way to verify a Rabbi on the internet. There is no such thing as “Eli the Priest.” No idea who Samson is. Philistines are an ethnic group from an entirely different region. Palestine is the name given to modern-day Israel and Jordan after being colonized by the Ottoman Empire, and it does not come from the Greek word “Philistine.” We don’t have any alters, and we don’t believe in violence or retribution of any kind. The Old Testament is not the Torah. Those who believe solely in the Christian Old Testament are called Fundamentalist Christians. The Torah is only the 5 Book of Moses, as originally written — not the re-written King James Version (authored by King James of England during a campaign against the Jews).

This is why actual Jews, who have real Rabbis, need to have access to contribute to this article about Judaism. It’s extremely biased and inaccurate — and locked. If this is a section in the Wiki Article, please kindly delete it. Thank you. AmericanHistory.exe (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comments about what Judaism is or is not are baffling. Please explain

how many "versions" of Judaism you believe there are. Patrick Riot 2003 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible"

Why is this phrase used? Use the proper name. We do not have the Catholic Quran or the Taoist Vedas. I'd edit it myself but I don't know how. 2601:14E:4100:79B0:D50B:C10F:AFE8:F4AA (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a very common phrase and not at all analogous to those examples. 18:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC) Furius (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Furius it's a poorly used phrase that should not be used.

The name for all Holy books are not <religion name> Bible. They have their own names, with their own history and culture. Christians have a Bible, other religions have holy books of their own names. Use the proper name and don't try and fit everything into a Christian mindset. 2601:14E:4100:79B0:369D:2221:E2FF:1CBB (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about this, take it to the talk page of Hebrew Bible, but you will see that there is a section there explaining that "Hebrew Bible" is considered a neutral term, not a Christianising one. The term "bible" is not specifically Christian; it just means "books" and in fact it was used by Greek-speaking Jews to describe the Hebrew Bible centuries before Christians showed up. Furius (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, what name would you prefer? This isn't exactly a simple topic. Many incorrectly use the term "Old Testament," for example, which not only is a Supersessionist name, but not even accurate as what Christians call the "Old Testament" includes some additional books that are not part of the Hebrew canon. Tanakh, while a more correct title, is not at all common in English language usage, as opposed to something like Quran or Rig Veda. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the 'Bible' has several sectarian versions, one should use Tanakh as the default term for the Jewish Masoretic recension, as with the Qur'an and Rg Veda. Since there are different canonical selections, rather than use a generic term, Bible/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, one should cite the specific book from which some datum is being cited which sidesteps this confusion. It is improper, for example, to use the 'Hebrew Bible' to write up some material on early biblical history, for the ethnic epithet implies that this item is not contained in any other bible format, Catholic, Protestant or whatever. Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible" is the most common English term into which Tanach is translated. So using "Hebrew Bible" in English is using Tanakh. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you provide any WP:RS that "Hebrew Bible" implies such a thing. It sounds like something that you have made up. Furius (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

Judaism did not evolve from Yahwism. John Dobermen of Ireland (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reliable sources cited in the article maintain that it did. If you wish to call those sources into question, please post your arguments and supporting citations of reliable sources here on the Talk page and seek consensus for any change. General Ization ^Talk 17:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

After the end of the "Origins" section (before the "Antiquity" section), add:

In his seminal Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Julius Wellhausen argued that Judaism as a religion based on widespread observance Torah law first emerged in the year 444 BCE when, according to the biblical account provided in the Book of Nehemiah (chapter 8), a priestly scribe named Ezra read a copy of the Mosaic Torah before the populace of Judea assembled in a central Jerusalem square. Wellhausen believed that this narrative should be accepted as historical because it sounds plausible, noting: “The credibility of the narrative appears on the face of it.” Following Wellhausen, most scholars throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries have accepted that widespread Torah observance began sometime around the middle of the 5th century BCE.

More recently, Yonatan Adler has argued that in fact there is no surviving evidence to support the notion that the Torah was widely known, regarded as authoritative, and put into practice, any time prior to the middle of the 2nd century BCE. Adler explored the likelihhood that Judaism, as the widespread practice of Torah law by Jewish society at large, first emerged in Judea during the reign of the Hasmonean dynasty, centuries after the putative time of Ezra.

In the Bibliography section, add two sources (each in their proper alphabetical place):

• Adler, Yonatan (2022). The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300254907.

• Wellhausen, Julius (1885). Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Black. ISBN 9781606202050. 192.66.115.29 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have sourcing for the sentence starting "Following Wellhausen, most scholars..."? That's quite a claim to make and likely to be challenged. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Contemporary Judaism evolved from Yahwism,"

you think a jewish person would be happy or insulted when they see that in the ARTICLE ABOUT JUDAISM it says that judaism evolved from polytheistic cults? can someone get rid of the sentences like this? The article about the origins of judaism are even worse. They make it seem like judaism being fake is an undisputed fact. This is not some ancient mythology with no worshippers alive today, guys. This is a real religion with millions of believers who would be able to see this stuff and get offended. Greatburgers (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Most religions are based on ancient mythologies ... that is unrelated to whether or not they have followers, nor does it make any given religion more 'fake' than any other. All religions are based on sets of beliefs that cannot be proven to be true. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the Naviim(prophets). They were consistently noting that Jews were worshiping idols. Drsmoo (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are these restrictions enforced here?

@Cabayi: This article shows a warning to editors about editing restrictions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Do these restrictions apply to this article even though it is not about this conflict? Jarble (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory / over-self-conceptualization risk line

This line's unnecessary and misleading ; "Boyarin suggests that this in part reflects the fact that much of Judaism's more than 3,000-year history predates the rise of Western culture and occurred outside the West (that is, Europe, particularly medieval and modern Europe)."

even within other Wikipedia pages such as the following, you contradict this, so what's the point of the quote? [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece#Legacy ]

And i'm not even getting started on what constitutes culture, or what 'western' is supposed to mean. A trade-winds / early magnetics and astronomy concept. Meaningless and sloppy, wikipedia. 120.19.133.148 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

If WP is sloppy (and the section you are discussing is sloppy, since it relies on a single source),you can change it! What should the section say instead? What WP:RS support that alternative? Furius (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament

I disagree with this assertion in the introduction of the article: "The Tanakh, known in English as the Hebrew Bible, is also referred to as the 'Old Testament' in Christianity." Given the contentious nature of religion and of the historical relationship between Christianity and Judaism, I didn't feel safe editing a very prominent sentence in a very prominent article without bringing it up on the talk page first. While the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament have the same content, I don't think it's sensible to call them the same text because:

• they don't have the same order of books - the order of books in the Old Testament puts Messianic prophecies last to build up to the coming of Jesus
• they're not translated identically - one tiny example is that the Hebrew word "orov" (swarm/mixture) used in Exodus as the name for the fourth plague is generally translated as "wild animals" in Jewish sources and "flies" in Christian ones
• they're interpreted differently - for example, no Jewish interpretation holds that the snake in the garden of Eden was the Devil, because there is no such concept in Judaism

I've noticed that the related articles Hebrew Bible and Old Testament do make this distinction already, which hopefully means I'm not alone in this and that people will agree the same should be done here. What do other people think?

Someone the Person (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The book of maccabees is in the Old Testament but not in the Hebrew bible for almost two millennia. 77.137.73.225 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So, this is a difficult topic. Speaking personally, I fully agree and feel that society should use the term "Hebrew Bible" or "Tanakh" and not "Old Testament," though mainly for the reasons of the Book of Maccabees being included in "Old Testament" and not Tanakh, as well as book ordering. Differences in translation and interpretation are, to me, less of an issue regarding naming. As it is, there are numerous different translations and interpretations of both the Old and New testaments within Christianity itself, such as between the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible and the Anglican King James Bible. While there may be less transnlational differences found for Tanakh, I wouldn't be surprised if some exist (even the Jewish Publication Society of America Version from 1917 has some significant differences to the more contemporary New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh from 1985). Certainly, as can be found just by looking at Talmud, let alone later scholarly discussions, there are disagreements on interpretation within Judaism.

I definitely agree personally, however, that "Old Testament" is a poor name to use due to things like the Book of Maccabees. However, that is overwhelmingly the common parlance term in the English language, and Wikipedia policy is clear that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, as much as we may personally like it to be. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have an in principle problem with the sentence, although I think some clarification is required. The Hebrew Bible article is wikipedia’s attempt at explaining the document that Jews refer to as the Tanakh/ch/h. The article I write are mainly about Jewish liturgy and I refer to Tanach and link to Tanach which is redirect to Hebrew Bible. It’s also true that Christian’s refer to the first set of books forming their two part bible as the "Old Testament" because it contains mostly although not exactly the same scripts What isn’t true is that Tanach = Hebrew Bible also equates to "Old Testament". An academically correct version of the lead sentence would be: "The Tanakh, known in English as the Hebrew Bible, is also the source document for the first part of the Christian Bible referred to as the 'Old Testament' in Christianity." I think a follow on sentence explaining what the acronym Tanach stands for and the different ordering in the Old Testament could be briefly explained. Ayenaee (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) As an aside one of the MOSes says that the guttural "g’ im Hebrew (as in the last sound in Tanach) should be transliterated as "ch" or "h". I don’t know why because kh is the least likely to be misinterpreted. But I don’t fight with the Wikipedia Bible :) so I use Tanach

Now that I look at this paragraph, the rest of the paragraph which talks about what the Torah is incorrect. It says that “Torah" refers to the first five books or those with the commentary around them. The commentary around the Torah is referred to as Torah she’be’alpe (the oral law) and has equal status to the written Torah (Jews believe that both were given at the revelation on mount sinai). Torah = written 5 books, Mishnah = oral written down as commentary on the 5 books, Talmud = oral law written down as commentary on Mishnah. So the collective name would be Talmud, not Torah as mentioned here. I’ll change this, because I don’t think it’s controversial. I should probably read the whole article, being my faith I already thought I new what it was :). Ayenaee (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Adler’s The Origins of Judaism

Mentioned in the works cited but not cited in the body. It’s an important work and perspective that should be included in the article.

Its conclusions seem fairly persuasive and I think could provide some refinement to the third sentence of the article (or at least challenge the idea that that’s the consensus view):

“ Contemporary Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the cultic religious movement of ancient Israel and Judah, around the 6th/5th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.”

Link to book:

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300276657/the-origins-of-judaism/ IncandescentBliss (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Interviews with Adler for those interested:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ImIGM4ZDcY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1TN-i0x7g

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vD5VmGkqfAg IncandescentBliss (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

New book The Yehud Coinage: A Study and Die Classification of the Provincial Silver Coinage of Judah (2023) is very important as well:

http://www.ins.org.il/files/files/Yehud_Coinage_Intro.pdf IncandescentBliss (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The research cited on the the Josiah page also brings the 6th/5th century dating into question. Widespread religious reforms in his time likely did not happen. We’re still leaning on the Documentary Hypothesis too much. Even if some texts date to the 6th/5th century BCE timeframe (no argument from me there!), that doesn’t imply that “contemporary Judaism” evolved then. (That’s probably more around the 2nd century BC in fact!). Based on the Yehud coinage (one of the few concrete things we have to go on), Athena was particularly popular in Yehud. Mary Leith’s 2020 article is especially helpful here:

https://www.academia.edu/44472311/New_Perspectives_on_the_Return_from_Exile_and_Per_sian_Period_Yehud IncandescentBliss (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not 2nd century BC. I mean 2nd century AD with the rise of Talmudic Judaism. To me, that’s when start to see a parallel to “contemporary Judaism” IncandescentBliss (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

CE* IncandescentBliss (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oldest?

What is the Samaritanism? 46.196.93.199 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Founder

Hi ΕλίαςΕλίας, thank you for your edit of the founder parameter in the infobox. But I disagree with you that Moses is considered the traditional founder of the religion. As the article states the first covenant between G-d, and Abraham and his descendants was Brit Bein Habetarim. G-d made these promises because of Abraham’s faith in the oneness of G-d. This, as embodied in the Shema, is still the founding tenant of Judaism today. Moses is considered the greatest prophet ever. The covenant at Sinai together with the giving of the Tanach and Talmud is part of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, and where modern Jews obtain the full practice of the religion. It is not the founding event. I choose not to revert other people’s work (0RR) unless there’s consensus through discussion. So if you accept my assertion please self revert your edit, or if not please discuss why not here. Ayenaee (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ayenaee. I believe Moses to be the "founder" of Judaism due to the modern covenant beginning with the revelation at mount Sinai of the written and oral Torah. And while I initially believed Abraham to be the "founder", mainly because of converts becoming "children of abraham", I have come to the conclusion that Moses is better suited for that title, because Abraham was neither a "jew" or "israelite", although he is referred to as "haIvri" in the bible.

As proof of my argument, there are three big covenants in the bible, the noahic covenant, which is for all of mankind, the abrahamic covenant which included circumcision and the gifting of the land of canaan, and the mosaic covenant which contains the 613 mitzvoth. Anyone observing the abrahamic covenant and not the mosaic covenant would not be an orthodox jew.

Ελίας (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortuantely, we can't take your word for it. Claims need to be directly supported by the majority of reliable sources. Scripture is considered a primary source that should be understood through later interpretation and analysis by experts, including secular scholars. Remsense诉 13:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ελίας (talk) I agree with User:Remsense. I believe the analysis you’ve given is incorrect, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s your analysis and is considered WP:OR (your own original research) which is not an acceptable citation for changing a stated fact in an article. If you believe your analysis is correct then you need to support it with reliable resources. [As an aside, I dispute your analysis because we’re not trying to define what a Jew/Israelite etc is, nor what an Orthodox Jew is today. We’re defining the founder of Judaism. That he didn’t follow all 613 mitvot, because they hadn’t been given yet, is irrelevant (to this issue). Your first thought about converts being called Ben Abraham or bat Sarah is aligned with this - although not the only support for his foundership. You also didn’t dispute my points.] Ayenaee (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Focus on Neturei Karta: why?

User Got Milked added a substantial section on “criticism of Judaism” that seems interested primarily in criticism of political Zionism as an aspect of some Jews’ religious identity through an examination of the Neturei Karta sect’s repudiation of Zionism. Given the marginal status of the Neturei Karta in the broader Jewish community both in terms of impact on practice and opinion, and in terms of their small numbers, and given the total lack of any other locus of critique (outside of political Zionism) in the “criticism of Judaism” section, the addition of this section seems likely to be motivated by an anti-Zionist ideology. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia best practices, which enjoin editors to remain neutral. This section should be moved to Haredim and Zionism. Khane Rokhl Barazani (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2024

This is a clear WP:COATRACK for items better suited for anti-zionism or Haredim and Zionism and not in line with the criteria of the main article, which is "criticism of Judaism and its texts, laws, and practices"

Editor should adjust accordingly or the items will be excised shortly. Mistamystery (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Got Milked it is clear WP:COATRACK, and just saying "it not" does not make it so.

As outlined in the revert note, your addition is not about criticism of Judaism (i.e. as a religion and practice), but is about religious criticism of Zionism. While perhaps a stub at best may be appropriate for this section on this page, there are separate pages that directly cover your additions (which do not fall under "criticism of judaism" generally speaking) and I recommend you direct your edits there.

And no, you are not being censured (censored?) you are using the wrong section to shoehorn arguments that clearly belong on another page. Mistamystery (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "focus on Neturei Karta" nor does it "COATRACK"; quite the contrary. This is a very general criticism of the very fundamental of Judaism as a venerable tradition of pious faith/violation of that pious faith. I have initially edited-in very brief introductory of this phenomena in the conspicuously blank CRITICISM section for some reasonable context of the nominal subject matter leading into the Main article:Criticism of Judaism, although User: Trappist the monk re-edited it to haphazardly add more to the section in an erroneous format/structure (sabotage?) which I have corrected with appropriate format and with additional facts. I will revert to the pre-Trappist the monk edit to help allay feelings of "WP:COATRACK" with this BASIC CRITICISM OF/WITHIN JUDAISM so as to NOT GET AWAY FROM THE NOMINAL SUBJECT of this article/this (blank) section that should have some context. I will add the extraneous details to Haredim and Zionism although that and all the myriad of other articles to dilute the subject matter is indeed WP:COATRACK(ING) which I believe is the true intention here. Got Milked (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1948

The Cre-ator and Sustainer of the Universe has a sense of humor: In the Hebrew calendar, known as Anno Mundi, 1948 is the year in which Abraham was born. On the secular calendar (current year being 2024 CE, vs 5784 AM), 1948 is the birth year of the Middle East country at the center of the News Media. Neither of these 1948s gets a Bronze Medal, nor are they as unspecific as the term Bronze Age, which does not have a basis for remaining in the Judaism article. Nuts240 (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Clever, but what's your point? Btw, the term Bronze Age actually doesn't occur in the article. Abraham, Canaan(ites), etc. do, so I'm a bit confused, but whatever; is it separation between biblical legend and historical approach, or the opposite, keeping the scriptural approach to time, undivided by human intellectual constructs like periodisation? Arminden (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)