Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

}}

What are the WP:V sources?

The foundational error in in this article is that it presents assumptions as facts. There needs to be some reliable sources who have compiled statistical information. Otherwise, the article amounts to no more than (for example) a compilation of assumed opinions about vanilla ice cream.

Certainly there are criticisms of Judaism, of the American Constitution, of incandescent light bulbs, etc, but opinions without statistical support are worthless. In the article there is absolutely nothing to show that the criticisms are the views of a significant portion of a sufficiently large random sample of a population. Nor does the article state what population it is assumed to hold these opinions. For all the reader knows, the samples of opinion might have been taken from supporters of David Icke. -- 173.52.182.160 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being a viewpoint of a significant portion of the population (what population, America?), but it has to do with views held by notable people. To that end, please look here and here. Silverseren^C 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are aiming at by suggesting that "statistical information" is required. Do you mean that a criticism cannot be included in the encyclopedia unless it is held by a large number of people? I don't think that is WP policy, ... do you have some WP policy to back-up your suggestion? On the other hand, I do concur that insignificant criticisms made by just 1 or 2 individuals, and which are not documented by any secondary sources (such as academics or scholars) should be excluded from the article. --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to find someone notable who has criticized any subject you can think of. But, since you have not found one notable author who has criticized the range of subjects included in this article, the next best thing would be a fair statistical study of the subject. This article includes six different subjects.

1. Criticism of concept of Chosen People
2. Violence
3. Land ownership conflicts in Middle East
4. Historical accuracy of religious texts
5. Women
6. Homosexuality

If you do not have any one source that ties these separate subjects together, and you also do not had a statistical study that indicates they are an all issues with the public, what is it that keeps the article in its entirety from being WP:OR in general, and WP:Synthesis in particular? -- 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what you are driving at, but if you want to propose the article for deletion, you should follow the process defined at WP:AfD. --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are mis-applying WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. First off, those sections in the article right now are, most likely, going to be removed and replaced or, at the very least, rewritten. Second, it is not original research or synthesis to say that these things are specifically described in notable works as being criticisms of Judaism. They do not all have to be in the same book or work and they do not have to all be directly tied together. We are not synthesizing a conclusion, when the conclusion is that this subject is a criticism of Judaism, which is what the source specifically states. The point of this article is to list, in summary style, criticisms of Judaism. The criticisms do not necessarily have to be directly related, as all we need is reliable sources stating that this thing or that thing is a criticism of Judaism, which we do, if you'll look at the sources sections which I linked you before. Silverseren^C 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren — we are skirting around an issue: "criticism of Judaism" as a topic has no source. Most of this Talk page is occupied with with the question of what should and should not be in this article. Notice that in all of that discussion not one editor refers to any source defining what is included under the rubric of "criticism of Judaism." Editors instead rely on their own persuasive abilities to try to convince other editors to fashion the article in a certain way. No source is available to guide us in what to include and exclude from this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren - I can see that your arguments make sense in the context of "Criticism of Judaism" as a sub-heading within an article, but is not about time that you admit that there is no rationale for inclusion as a stand-alone article? None of the sources you have cited actually address "Criticism of Judaism" directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the article should be deleted was rejected by two AfDs. Please move on to discussing how to improve the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How can you improve an article whose subject matter does not exist as a topic of study in the real world? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

the Chosen People section

This section is a bad caricature of a complex religious problem that is interwoven with issues of Christian and Muslim supersessionism. See [1] for a thoughtful and well balanced discussion of some of the problems involved. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims from Christianity and Islam that those faiths have superseded Judaism generally belong in the article Anti-Judaism or supersessionism. However, this article is appropriate for criticisms that do not allude to Christianity or Islam, especially criticisms that arise within Judaism itself. An example from the source you cite immediately above is: "About fifty years later, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of the Reconstructionist movement, proposed a Judaism that rejected, in his words, the "anachronistic" and "arrogant" concept of the Chosen People, which perpetrated "race or national superiority." Other examples of the such criticisms are documented in the article, but could certainly use improvement. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the section? --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to include M. Mendelssohn as one who was critical of the notion of "Chosen People", based on the cite which has: "In Mendelssohn's thought, the eternal laws are those which every human being can attain directly through reason and observation; they are universal laws embedded in creation, not written with letters and script, and not given to one people alone.... Mendelssohn not only denies the Jewish religion any special doctrine, but also any particular moral instruction... He maintains 'Judaism boasts of no exclusive revelation of eternal truths that are indispensable to salvation... this is the universal religion of mankind, not Judaism' ". The source goes on to say that M. did believe that Judaism had a special role to play by "never forgetting" the religious truths, so he did acknowledge some special role. Comments? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in that about the relation of Jews to God. What he says is that non-Jews have a relation to God also. It is not a criticism of Judaism. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire book is about the "Chosen People" concept; and the chapter containing the cite is dedicated to those that rejected or criticized the Chosen People concept. They source says that M. "challenged" the orthodox interpretation of Chosen People, so that seems to clearly indicate he was critical of it, in the author's opinion. --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your referring, in an edit summery, to Mendelssohn as "Leader of reform movement" is completely wrong. He was a life long Orthodox Jew, who died long before the beginning of Reform Judaism. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I was paraphrasing the Moses Mendelssohn article which has "He has been referred to as the father of Reform Judaism" in the lead. But you are correct: "father" is different than "leader". --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• The book you site is: Gürkan, S. Leyla (2008). The Jews as a Chosen People: Tradition and Transformation. Taylor & Francis. pp. 49–55. Much of the book can be read here [2], including a discussion of Moses Mendelssohn which starts on page 55 (do you remember the pages you site are 49-55?). Perhaps you can point out where on p55 the word "challenged" is used. I do not see it. Mendelssohn was a life long practicing Orthodox Jew. He would not have "challenged" the Torah and I doubt Gürkan said that he did. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page 55: ".. he voiced some novel and challenging views about the nature of Jewish religion". Somehow it seems like the "father of reform Judaism" would have issued some very significant challenges to the orthodox doctrine of his time. --Noleander (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, I am still waiting for you to show me where it says Moses Mendelssohn criticized the concept of Chosen People. His giving a different interpretation to Torah is not a criticism of Torah. What you are doing is original research, which is not allowed by WP. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving a different interpretation to Torah would, however, be Criticism in the scholarly sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon: "The truth is, there was much of it [Judaism] in which he [Mendelssohn ] simply did not believe: the idea of the chosen people, the mission to humanity, the Promised Land.... That was why the great modern apologist for Judaism, Yechezkel Kaufmann (1889- 1963), called Mendelsson 'the Jewish Luther' - he cut the faith and people apart". Page 302 from "A History of the Jews" (HarperCollins, 1988). --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Salime Leyla Gürkan seems to be a rather obscure scholar, and building your conclusions about Moses Mendelssohn on a single obscure source makes problems with WP:UNDUE. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't coverage about Jews as a chosen people be moved to the article to which it relates? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is a WP:Summary Style article (see discussion on that at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Common ground). The criticism regarding "Chosen people" falls within the scope of this article (see Talk:Criticism of Judaism#3)What should scope be?). This article has a "main" link from the Chosen People section to the article you identify: "Main article: Jews as a chosen people" The purpose of Summary Style articles is to help readers navigate, not hinder them. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If this article is sole rationale for existence navigation, then make it a redirect. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are correct, coverage about Jews as a chosen people should be moved to the article to which it relates, as it falls outside the scope of this article, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and as was the consensus at #List of criticisms, restated at #Material inappropriate for this article/scope. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the Chosen People content falls within the scope of this article. This article will continue to be consistent with the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, which reflect the consensus of the wider WP community. If you want the article deleted, the correct process is to submit an AfD. --Noleander (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I would suggest that since there is at least some consensus on making this a summary style article--if we are to follow the guidelines for same, we're supposed to make sure that whatever summary exists here, a fuller rendition exists in the article to which the summary links. I believe policy suggests that the fuller rendition should be created in the target article first. Would it not make sense for those editors who believe material from this article should exist elsewhere should go ahead and make those edits in those articles, and after that is done, we can reduce the material here to an appropriate summary and link? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn: Yes, that is a good suggestion. Looking at the Jews as a chosen people article, it looks like some of the material is already there in Jews as a chosen people#Reform Judaism and Jews as a chosen people#Criticism of chosenness: Reconstructionist Judaism. Spinoza is not mentioned in that article at all. That article is already organized by subsections based on various branches of Judaism, so it may be a bit awkward to create an entirely new "Criticism" section in there. Maybe we could just rely on those two existing subsections? Or perhaps we could post a query on its Talk page to get more input? --Noleander (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since one purpose of a summary style is to aid navigation, why don't we write a very brief synopsis of the material for each of the target sections, and provide both link. In other words, on this page we note there's a distinction between the use/reception of "chosen people" for reformed and reconstructionist judaism, and summarize each briefly. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is a good idea. Two additional thoughts: (1) I think it would be good to keep a reference to Spinoza (so maybe Spinoza should be added into the Jews as a chosen people article?); and (2) to ensure that this article complies with NPOV policy, it must include "other viewpoint" info - it does have some such content already (" most modern branches of the Jewish faith interpret.. ") so that must be kept in some fashion. --Noleander (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sound fine to me. What I would dare to hope is that some of the editors that want the information moved to other articles would pitch in to make that happen, but I'm happy to work on the summary part here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Noleander, you're free to assert that material falls within the scope of the article, but, of course, that doesn't make it so. Also, as I've stated several times before on this Talk: page, I didn't take part in the AfD, and have no desire to delete a proper article on this topic; please desist from "deliberately asserting false information". However, I'm confused when you state the article "will continue to be consistent with the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles"; do other "Criticism of someReligion" articles all have sections on "Jews as a chosen people", then? Is there some sort of policy mandating that they all must have such a section? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was bold and made a first pass on trying to improve this, I'm still not happy with it, especially the last line, but I'm out of time right now. Suggestions/criticism (in both the common and academic sense) are welcome, but the main question is, is it a bit better? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article survived an AfD

The article survived an AfD which is a good thing: the article, as far as I can see, is as coherent and well sourced as it can be. Now, since I'm a Christian, not a Jew, I'm going to examine Criticism of Christianity to see what I need to improve in my belief system. Cheers, take it easy, be happy, everybody! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

List of criticisms

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

1. The God postulated by Judaism does not exist
2. Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God
3. God did not single out Jews as the chosen people
4. Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times)
5. Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context)
6. Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles
7. Judaism's "promised land" doctrine has led to land-ownership disputes in the mid-East
8. Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly
9. Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities
10. Judaism has many religious laws that discriminate against non-Jews
11. Judaism's early leaders and texts persecuted Christians
12. Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus
13. Traditional Judaism involves many irrational practices and rituals, which are not necessary or binding
14. Traditional Judaism includes many practices and laws that lead to isolation from non-Jewish communities
15. Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered
16. Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary
17. Rabbinical leadership was too authoritarian
18. Some facets of Judaism were too superstitious or too mystical
19. Traditional Judaism over-emphasized the exile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bumping to keep out of archive. --Noleander (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Over here! This is where the consensus on restricting the scope to material that complies with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR was achieved. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I reject the suggestion that there is any consensus in the above discussion, for the following reasons:

• This section of the talk page does not include a question to be decided: it merely contains a reference list of some candidate criticisms. Why would any editor think a significant decision is being made in this section?
• The above comments were posted before the discussion of scope even got underway (which was in the timeframe May 14 to May 27).
• All the above criticisms are within the scope of this article, as defined below in Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?.
• All the above criticisms are consistent with the decisions made in the two AfDs.
• All the above criticisms are consistent with the consensus of the wider WP community in the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles.
• The restrictions suggested above would eliminate all criticisms from the article, leaving an empty article, contravening the decision of the AfD.
• The suggested restrictions were also posted into the second AfD, and they were disregarded there and the decision was "Keep" which a clear rejection of the suggested restrictions.

--Noleander (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you are referring to "the consensus of the wider WP community in the other 'Criticism of someReligion' articles." Where is it that this "consensus" can be found? Not that a consensus reached at another article would be applicable to this article, but where is that consensus articulated? Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is found in the Talk pages of those articles, and in their numerous AfDs. Hundreds of times, over a six year period, scores of editors debated whether certain criticisms should be included in those articles, and EVERY SINGLE TIME the consensus was that a criticism should be included if it addressed the religion's doctrines, laws, practices, texts, and leaders. Unless there is some reason why Judaism should be treated differently than those other religions, that guidance from the other Talk pages is useful for this article. Can you provide a reason why Judaism should be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia? --Noleander (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Noleander, you don't really get to decide that discussions where people agree with you are discussion of scope and "consensus", and discussions where people disagree with you are not about scope and not consensus. Nor can you ex post facto and unilaterally insist that the rejected material in question is "within the scope of this article, as defined below in [[Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3)", and that therefore you can reject this consensus. Nor can you unilaterally insist that this agreement would reject too much material, or somehow contravenes entirely unrelated discussions on entirely different articles. You must start listening to all editors, not just those who agree with you. This was a discussion of the scope of this article, and the consensus went against you. Plain and simple. Please accept the established consensus and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, honestly, but if there's no consensus over "there", there's no consensus over "here" either. I am not at all sure what topics should remain in the article, but if the article is going to remain (and the last AFD suggests it will), I would like for it to be a decent article, and so I will continue to work on it. I would suggest the better way forward would be to talk about individual sections of the article as it stands. If a specific section does not warrant inclusion, let's talk about that individual section. I fear that many editors are so entrenched at this point that these kinds of general discussion are not fruitful. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you are insisting on using non-policy-based reasoning. You say, "Can you provide a reason why Judaism should be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia?" There is no policy linking articles this way. It doesn't matter what other articles do or say. What matters at this article is what is particular to this article. And the recent AfD is faulty. 50% of the "keep" votes argue that the existence of certain other articles creates a need for this article to exist. That reasoning is non-policy-based. Doesn't this cast doubt on the validity of the recent AfD? Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe you have new information that would generate a different outcome of an AfD, then you should start a third AfD and provide that new information. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg: There are significant differences between the consensus in the Scope section and the restrictions you suggested above in this "List" section. Let's look at some differences:

• The Scope section was part of a organized process to build consensus (the time frame May 12 to May 27, following the lock on this article); this reference list section was not.
• The Scope section presented a decision to be made. This reference list contains a, well, a reference list.
• The Scope section had two clearly defined alternatives to choose from. This reference list has no choices.
• The title of the Scope section gave notification to editors that a decision was being presented.
• The Scope section included some !voting. This reference list did not.
• The decision in the Scope section is consistent with other "Criticism of someReligion" articles; the suggested restrictions in this List section above are not
• The decision in the Scope section is logical and coherent; the suggestions above are not.
• The decision in the Scope section is consistent with the AfD "Keep" decision; the suggested restrictions are not.

--Noleander (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you are saying above that this article should be "consistent with other 'Criticism of someReligion' articles." And a few posts up you say, "Can you provide a reason why Judaism should be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia?" Is there policy to support the notion that articles should conform with one another as you seem to be implying? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Noleander, there are differences between the consensus here, and the other sections you mention. One of the primary ones is that the consensus here preceded those other non-consensuses, and makes most of what is in them irrelevant, which is likely why there were ignored. The other is that this consensus complied with the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies, which the later sections did not, and is likely another reason why the later sections were ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The NOR and NPOV arguments were both presented in the AfDs on this article, and they were rejected when the AfDs resulted in a "Keep" decision. I think we should heed Nuujinn's advice above and quit bickering and instead focus on improving the article. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD did no such thing; in fact, the conclusion of the closing admin was exactly the opposite. He said that the problems with the content should be fixed through the editing process, which is exactly what this section is about. Please stop "deliberately asserting false information", it's against policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note here reiterating the actual outcome of the AfD immediately above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Material inappropriate for this article/scope

Just to be clear, in order to comply with WP:NPOV, all Wikipedia articles must "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Thus material that is (policy-wise) inappropriate for this article (but quite possibly perfectly appropriate for others) includes:

• Criticism of religious texts (e.g. the Bible), beliefs (e.g. God, the Exodus), or traditions/practices (e.g. Circumcision) which are not unique to Judaism, and are shared with other religions. These criticisms belong in the respective or related articles on the text, belief, tradition/practice, where they can be given a contextual treatment that encompasses all groups that share them.
• Topics about which Judaism has multiple often conflicting views and practices (e.g. Jewish feminism, Gender and Judaism, Judaism and slavery, LGBT topics and Judaism, Shechita, Jews as a chosen people). These criticisms belong in the respective articles on the views and practices, where they can be given a contextual treatment that encompasses all Jewish views.
• Topics about which there is considerable scholarly debate about what Judaism's beliefs even are (e.g. Yeshu). These criticisms belong in the respective articles on the topics, where they can be given a contextual treatment that encompasses all reliable views on exactly what Judaism's position is.

There may be other qualifications as well (which can be added), but this is a good starting point for weeding out the inappropriate material that has unfortunately often turned this article into a "List of random negative things someone has said about Jews or Judaism". Whenever considering a topic for inclusion in this article, the editor must be guided in this way by the WP:NPOV policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion has been offered many times above in the Talk pages, but it is not consistent with the consensus of the community. I understand you want to delete this article, but that choice was rejected by the community in the both AfDs. No one has suggested adding generic "god does not exist" criticisms to this article, so your suggestion in that regard is a red herring. The existence of more detailed articles on specific topics is irrelevant: the consensus (including user Avi) is that this is a WP:Summary Style article, so the mere existence of other articles is irrelevant. The test we use for inclusion is not your opinion, but rather the opinion voiced by the sources. For example, if you believe that animal cruelty (re Shechita) is not a valid criticism of Judaism, but the sources describe it as a criticism, we go with the sources, not you. Finally, it would be more useful if you contributed your thoughts in the appropriate sections of this Talk page, above, that already cover the on-going discussions. --Noleander (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the actual comments above; we are not talking about deleting the article, and you must comment on content, not on the contributor. This page is for discussing article content only, and the issue here is that the article must comply with the WP:NPOV policy. That is both policy, and consensus. As has been explained already, material may well be a criticism of something, and sourced, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this article, or, indeed, can go in this article without violating policy. We do indeed "go with the sources", but we are also editors who must comply with Wikipedia policy; that means material must go where it belongs, and, in fact, that not all sourced material necessarily belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not "every single sourced statement that can be found anywhere". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In a prior section of this talk page, at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#List of criticisms, more than a dozen criticisms were proposed, and you claimed that nearly every single one of them was not appropriate for this article. Now, since the second AfD failed, you now propose a restrictive scope that would exclude virtually every criticism, leaving an empty article. Thus, your proposed scope is illogical. Furthermore, your proposed scope is out-of-step with the consensus of the broader WP community, as expressed in the six-year history of the various "Criticism of someReligion" articles. Also, you may want to review the WP:Summary Style guideline to see why it is appropriate for this article to include content that is described in more detail in other articles. You declined to participate in the collaborative, civil discussions above about scope and instead chose to start an entirely new section, which is very disruptive. If you want to help in a constructive way, please contribute to the relevant sections above in the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the "second AfD" to me; I did not take part in it. I have no objection whatsoever to a proper article on this topic, but this approach of stuffing into the article "random stuff I found while googling for any negative statements related to Jews or Judaism" is clearly un-encyclopedic and policy-violating. Violations of NPOV are "out-of-step with the consensus of the broader WP community", and the "relevant sections above in the Talk page" were discussions about ways of contravening the NPOV policy, not complying with it. And finally, you must comment on content, not on the contributor. No more speculations about what you imagine I wanted to do in AfDs I did not participate in, or statements about what you imagine I did or did not do on this talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to call your bullets 1, 2, and 3 for the purpose of this response.

Regarding 1, I agree, we should only be discussing things that are unique to Judaism and not other religions. For that reason, we should be discussing the Tanakh, not the Bible. We should also be discussing the criticism of the concept of the "personal God", as put forth in the Tanakh. Lastly, we should be discussing specific rituals, such as Shechita, Brit milah, Niddah, and, if the right kind of sources can be found, criticisms of Halakha, as all of these things are specific to Judaism, regardless of their context in the outside world.

Regarding 2, if they are subjects that have conflicting views, then the information in this article should be broad about them and mention both sides of the issue, while linking to the main article on the subject, per Summary Style, so readers can go and find the more specific information regarding the topic there.

Regarding 3, if there are debates within Judaism regarding how certain rituals or practices should be performed, then that should be mentioned and, as long as it doesn't get too lengthy, explained, while also including the criticisms about it and whichever specific method of the rituals that is being criticized.

I think that covers everything. Silverseren^C 01:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SilverSeren on the above points, and his/her opinion reflects the consensus from the Talk page discussions above. --Noleander (talk)

I concur with SilverSeren as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I only have time for a brief response right now, but in summary: You seem to be implying that the Tanakh is a work almost completely different in content from the Bible (or "Old Testament"). This, however, is not the case; if one is, for example, criticizing the historicity of the Exodus story (or criticizing the belief in this story), then one should realize that the story is identical in "the Bible" and "the Tanakh". The same is true for all the contents of the Tanakh, and any such criticism of "the Tanakh" will apply identically to "the Bible". Regarding topics like Brit Milah, it is no different from any other circumcision, and criticisms of it apply equally to all circumcisions. Regarding topics like Niddah etc., and the rest of your comment, per WP:NPOV, criticisms of them must, of course, be found in articles that discuss "all significant views" on the topic, and not merely "some negative thing someone said about it". Thus their inclusion in an article of "Random negative stuff people said about various Jewish beliefs or customs" is a violation of WP:NPOV, even in "summary form". The criticism will go where it complies with policy, not where it violates it. And finally, regarding various people "agreeing" on the contents, the editors who are actually familiar with this topic are in full agreement that these "criticisms of Judaism" belong in their respective, encyclopedic, WP:NPOV-compliant articles, and not in this random grab-bag of "stuff I found while googling for any negative statements related to Jews or Judaism". Two or twenty "I agree" and "I concur" statements can't overcome policy, good writing, and common sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

JayJG: Your opinions are contrary to the consensus of the wider WP community, as established during the six year histories of the various "Criticism of someReligion" articles (refer to Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, etc). Your proposal that this article should exclude fundamental criticisms about Judaism's religious practices and religious texts is incomprehensible. Please refrain from this pattern of disruptive edittng. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you are consistently presenting the same erroneous argument relating this article to other articles. The "Criticism of Christianity" article and/or the "Criticism of Islam" article are separate articles from the "Criticism of Judaism" article. You are claiming a "consensus" across articles but no such concept exists in Wikipedia policy. The development of one article creates no obligation for a similar development at another article. If you know of any policy that would imply otherwise please bring it to our attention. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, please try to focus on this article's content, not on other articles or on editors. WP:NPOV has consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander, your continuing in this vein is at this point interfering with our attempts to reach consensus. As for policy, at this point, I'll just point to the fifth pillar. Please leave this topic alone and let us get some work done on the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside some of the talk about editors as individuals, and speaking only to the matter of what should or should not be included on this page, I agree with Noleander, Silverseren, and Nuujinn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a very odd claim Nuujinn; everyone who disagrees with your view on content is "interfering with out attempts to reach consensus" and should "leave this topic alone and get some work done on the article"? Quite anti-Wikipedian. No, actually, there's been a pretty strong consensus among long-term editors knowledgeable regarding the topic that far too much random material has been inserted into the article, when policy demands it goes in other articles. Please try to achieve an actual consensus on article content with other editors, and please ensure proposed content complies with WP:NPOV. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are interfering because you are still trying to argue for deletion for this article, when consensus has already been shown to want it to be kept. There are some of us who are trying to find sources and move forward in making the article better, but you don't seem to be doing that. If you don't wish to help improve the article, you shouldn't be here, you should be doing something else. Silverseren^C 03:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because the decision was to "keep" the article doesn't mean that questions don't remain unanswered. Key among them in my opinion is what warrants inclusion and what does not warrant inclusion. That should be easy to answer were there a source to rely on for that. This article is unusual in that no source defines "criticism" in relation to Judaism. We have been thus forced to fall back on our own resources to try to hammer out an agreement on that question. It is that debate that is called for. Several of you have been pointing a finger at other articles, from which you feel that this article must take its cue. But I most definitely don't see it that way. I think there is ample reason to see those other articles as equally compromised in clear parameters based on sources. And on principle I don't see Wikipedia articles as dependent on one another. The argument has been made that a "consensus" reached at another article creates a requirement that this article follows suit — I disagree. That sort of rationale played a large part in the most recent AfD, in which the argument was made that the existence of other "criticism of XYZ religion" articles created a "requirement" that this article exist. That AfD is over, but that non-policy-based reasoning is not welcome in these discussions. To foster a cooperative working atmosphere we should solely be working on the one article associated with this Talk page. It has clearly been established that policy does not require this article to be based upon a layout found in other articles. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver seren, to begin with, disagreeing with you isn't "interfering"; please review WP:OWN. Also, per policy, please make more accurate Talk: page statements: I haven't been "trying to argue for deletion for this article"; as I stated quite clearly, I did not take part in the AfD, and have no objection to a proper article on the topic. Your advice to me actually applies to yourself: "If you don't wish to help improve the article, you shouldn't be here, you should be doing something else." Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Bus Stop. What is missing from this article are reliable secondary source that address the subject of "Criticism of Judaism" directly and in detail. Argueably, this article should be renamed "List of Criticisms of Judaism", but there is no definition for that either. What is needed is external validation for this article topic: a source which could be used to identify what "Criticism of Judaism" is about, as opposed to citing sources that contain the word "criticism" in passing. This article should be able to stand on its own feet, but so far the argument that it should exist ignore the fact that the word "criticism" occurs just about everywhere, even in sources which provide balanced coverage of Jewish belief. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To add, there have been similar articles that have ended up deleted for similar reasons put forward by Gavin and others. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse (second nomination) - Psychiatric abuse was a heterogeneous article with issues akin to this one. I do think all these type of articles should be examined. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they all should be examined individually. I don't think any blanket statement can be made about all of them. In fact it is not even clear where the group begins and where the group ends as naming conventions alone don't seem to determine this. That is an interesting AfD linked to on a former article Psychiatric abuse. I think each such article has to be evaluated on its own merits. They were created separately and if they are to be deleted or otherwise altered that should be done separately too, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, to avoid the many WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues with the current content in this article, I recommend people start editing it based on the guidelines in this section, in line with the conclusion of the most recent AfD on the article, and with the consensus in the section above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to move forward with improving the article

In accordance with the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Possible outlines for this article, I've incorporated that outline into the article. I applied it to the 12 May 13:58 version of the article, since that version is more consistent with the consensus scope ("A") we discussed at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?. The key improvement here is the outline. The individual criticisms found in that May 12 version of the article may or may not be appropriate for this article, and need to be evaluated individually. As we move forward, it may be good to follow this process:

• If you think the article should be deleted, submit an AfD proposal
• If you think the article's scope should be changed, propose a new scope here in the Talk page (but before you do, review the two baseline scopes A and B that are found at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?).
• If you agree with the "Scope A" consensus scope, but think that a specific criticism should be removed-from or added-to the article, propose that deletion/addition here in the Talk page.
• If you simply want to make non-controversial improvements to the content (such as grammar, adding citations, improving wording) go right ahead.

Does that sound sensible? --Noleander (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not that the scope of the article should be changed, the problem is that it has no defined scope other than those originating from editorial opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what specific suggestions do you have as to how we improve the article? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Need more balancing info to ensure NPOV

A lot of work is needed on this article. The biggest task I see is ensuring compliance with the NPOV policy, by including balancing/rebuttal information to accompany each criticism. There is already a small amount of such balancing info in the article, but it is not sufficient, and in some cases does not fully represent all opposing viewpoints. So, I plan on focusing on that area in the near future. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions in that regard, let me know. --Noleander (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was very eloquent, Noleander. *claps* I will just say I agree and leave it at that. For now, I think we need to focus on finding more sources and then, once we have a good amount, we can start grouping them under criticism subjects that they are speaking about and then we can write up sections based on what each group of sources say. And then the article will be awesome. Sound good? :) Silverseren^C 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud too. The additional major work with respect to fixing POV is, of course, crucial. And sources are the way to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some sources to the history and violence sections, please take a look and let me know if I'm on the right track. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with changes, including the new phrase: "Some scholars, however, reject the notion that the Tanakh should be considered an historical work, emphasizing the role of myth, legend, and folk motifs played in its origin, or note the modern conception of history is much different than the views held in the past". Accompanying citations look good. --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this coverage about the Tanakh be moved to the article to which it relates? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, could you write a small piece for it in summary section style and post it in a new section here so we can talk about it? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins: This is a WP:Summary style article, as discussed at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Common ground. Please review the WP:Summary Style guideline. There is no WP policy that says that a fact cannot appear in two or more articles. The purpose of Summary Style articles is to help readers navigate the encyclopedia; and to provide "one stop shopping". Im not sure if your suggestion is just that the entire section Criticism of Judaism#Historical accuracy of origins and foundations be deleted; or just the single sentence "Some scholars ..." be deleted. The topic of the section (namely "Some critics claim that many events and figures that are central to the formation of Judaism and its laws are historically implausible") is clearly a criticism of Judaism, and obviously belongs in this article. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a better description would be its an WP:AVOIDSPLIT article, since its content relates to other (notable) topics. The quote that you have taken comes from a book[3] that discusses Jewish fundamentalism, amoungst other topics. It is a mention in passing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gavin Collins, you are correct, coverage of the Tanakh should be moved to another article (though it actually should be Biblical criticism and Criticism of the Bible), per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, as was the consensus at #List of criticisms, restated at #Material inappropriate for this article/scope. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gavin's interpretation too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Historical accuracy of origins" content falls within the scope of this article. This article will continue to be consistent with the other "Criticism of someReligion" articles, which reflect the consensus of the wider WP community. Please review both AfDs on this article, which clearly rejected the OR and NPOV arguments. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're free to assert that "Historical accuracy of origins" material falls within the scope of the article, but, of course, that doesn't make it so. Several more experienced editors have explained to you that it doesn't, including three in this very thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the closer of the AfD felt that an article avoiding OR and NPOV was feasible does not mean carte blanche for every subsection therein Noleander. Hence the discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Casliber: I agree with you, every individual subsection needs to be considered on its own merits. Regarding the section under discussion here, namely Criticism of Judaism#Historical accuracy of origins and foundations, perhaps you could help other editors understand your reasoning: What is your definition of what this article should be? Can you list some criticisms that you think should be in the article? What criteria would you suggest for deciding which criticisms are included, and which are excluded? Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The parameters of the article shouldn't be determined by the opinions of editors. Rather, "sources" should be dictating the parameters to us. You are asking, "What is your definition of what this article should be? Can you list some criticisms that you think should be in the article? What criteria would you suggest for deciding which criticisms are included, and which are excluded?" Sources should be telling us what does and does not constitute "criticism of Judaism." Opinions of editors should not be our primary focus. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained many times, Noleander, the material is not a criticism of Judaism, but a Criticism of the Bible. The Bible is a religious text shared by more than one religion; indeed, the vast majority of people who consider the Bible to be a sacred text are not practitioners of Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I politely disagree. The Jewish Tanakh and Christian Bible overlap, but are not the same. There are issues in biblical translation, and there are significant differences in the methods of exegesis used in the Christian traditions and those in the Jewish traditions. Even Christian denominations vary in terms of what comprises "the" bible. One major difference is that most Christian sects interpret the old testament through the new testament (which is one reason Baptists serve BBQ in the south). We have Hebrew_Bible, Tanakh, Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, amoung others, do you believe they are all the same and should be merged? --Nuujinn (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg: Hmmm, I dont see a section in this article about the "Bible" ... are you referring to the section on the "Historical accuracy of the foundations of Judaism"? Also, several editors have requested that we use the term "Tanakh" when referring to the Jewish Bible, and so you may want to respect their wishes. --Noleander (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Nuujinn makes some very valid points. Broadly speaking, criticism of the texts upon which a religion is founded is criticism of that religion, so long as it is criticism of the teachings of those texts as opposed to criticism of writing style or other things that are not really what gives rise to the religion. And religions that grew out of the Biblical traditions, ie, the monotheistic religions, all grew out of Judaism, so it is entirely possible that a criticism of Judaism, as properly defined for our purposes, may also have been made of Christianity or Islam. But the key thing is, of course!, what do the sources say? I haven't yet read them all, but pretty much all of the sources that are cited in the "Historical accuracy..." section appear to be sources about Judaism. Am I wrong about that last point? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Tryptofish's suggestion that only sources that are discussing criticisms specific to Judaism should be used in this context. For instance, a source that is discussing a generic criticism such as "The earth was not created in 7 days" would not be appropriate in this article; but a source that discusses "Judaism's celebration of Passover is based on historically questionable events ..." would be appropriate for this article. I believe all the sources comport with that suggestion, but additional sources should also be supplied, if necessary. --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say, "a source that discusses 'Judaism's celebration of Passover is based on historically questionable events …' would be appropriate for this article." Where in the hypothetical source is the mention of it being a "criticism of Judaism?" Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave that example merely to illustrate how a source could be discussing criticisms specific to Judaism (vs religion in general). I was not proposing to include that particular topic in the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, you're not going to justify deletions on the grounds that there is no giant neon sign that says "THIS IS A CRITICISM" on everything that is included in the article. Wikipedia requires competence, and if you can't understand such a thing as a criticism, you should not be editting. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — at Reliable Sources I find:

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

While I realize the example given by Noleander was merely hypothetical I think we should expect sources to adequately support claims. By inclusion in this article the implication is that a given topic constitutes "criticism of Judaism." Does that not require a source? Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And a number of reliable sources for various criticisms of Judaism have been presented in various discussions in various locations by various editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of statement would you require, Bus stop, to include a criticism in this article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — I would not require a specific type of a "statement." But you would have to provide a source that strongly implied that something was a "criticism of Judaism." I notice that most of the sources being used are from print. I'm aware that "verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources," but a short excerpt of relevant wording would I think help me and others to evaluate a contention that the source construes a comment as a "criticism of Judaism." It is also possible that the source may not be construing the comment as a "criticism of Judaism." But on a slightly separate note, aren't you asking me, in essence, how closely we should be adhering to sources? The answer would be that I don't know. But shouldn't we be endeavoring to adhere as closely as possible to sources? Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the heart of the matter, so you're not going to weasel your way out of answering this question. How do you expect a criticism to be phrased in the text in order for inclusion to be justified? Can you give an example or are you going to reject every negative statement about the religion of Judaism from this article on the grounds that the text does not "refer to it as a criticism" ? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — I already answered your question, immediately above. Let me add that WP:VERIFY says that, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:NPOV/FAQ says, "there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased" and "There is a point beyond which our interest in being a completely open project is trumped by our interest in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policies." So please, continue your disruptive edits and comments. You may very well get yourself topic banned again. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury, as I've already told Nuujinn, actual critiques of Judaism (as opposed to this mishmash of NPOV violating OR) exist. I suggested he start with the classics on the subject, Kant and Hegel. Now please stop hectoring Bus stop on this issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you say I politely disagree. The Jewish Tanakh and Christian Bible overlap, but are not the same. Well, let's look at the examples given in this section in the article; "the events surrounding the Exodus, the tradition that the Torah was written by Moses, and the events surrounding the battle of Jericho". Now, in what way does the "Christian Bible" (i.e. Old Testament) differ from the "Tanakh" in its presentation of these events? None, in fact; aside from the order of the books, in fact, the two are essentially identical on these points. Nor does traditional Christian belief as to the historicity of these events differ in any way from traditional Jewish belief. So, please explain why this is a criticism of Judaism, rather than a criticism of the Old Testament? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say whether you are right or wrong in your assertions regarding the Exodus, since I'm researching other aspects. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point is that we cannot conflate the Tanakh and the Old Testement as being the same--even if the texts were identical (and they aren't, since translation is an act of interpretation), the tradition of exegesis for each religion or sect informs reception of the text. Texts do not exist outside of acts of reading, and acts of reading are affected by extra-textual context. This is especially true of religious texts. But in regard to your main point, I would say that it is the nature of the criticism that would determine if the criticism is directed at Judaism or the Bible. If a critic says "Judaism is a false religion because it is based on the Tanakh, and events depicted in the Tanakh did not happen," that's a criticism of Judaism, not the Bible. Whether it's a valid criticism, or logical in it's formation, or appropriate for inclusion here, are separate questions. And clearly, that section as well as the rest of the article requires better sourcing, which is why I will continue to ask everyone to put down the stick if only for a little while and work on the article a bit. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that translation is an act of interpretation, and the exegesis for each religion differs, on matters as fundamental as, say, "was the Exodus a historical event", the traditional views of both faiths do not differ in the slightest, since the basics of the stories are identical. Regarding the criticism "Judaism is a false religion because it is based on the Tanakh, and events depicted in the Tanakh did not happen," while the specific words might be directed at Judaism, the actual criticism is directed at the Tanakh/Old Testament, and any religion that relies on that text. One finds identical "criticisms" directed at Christianity, on the exact same grounds, and based on the same stories. The historicity of each is identical, since they depict "historical events" identically. Presenting this as merely a criticism of Judaism violates WP:NPOV, since it artificially presents the issue as if it is one that applies to Judaism alone. Material should be presented in the context that most fully encompasses the subject. To take it somewhat more broadly, does it, in fact, make sense to include as a criticism of every single (deity based) religion that it relies on the existence of a deity/deities whose existence cannot be proven? That is silly; this "criticism" is a criticism of notion of the Existence of God, where the material properly belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about what you're saying, but my first reaction is that what you are proposing violates WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH. If a source contains the statement "Judaism is a false religion because it is based on the Tanakh, and events depicted in the Tanakh did not happen," even though I might agree with you that that is at heart a structurally identical criticism from another source stating "Chrisitianity is a false religion because it is based on the Bible, and events depicted in the Bible did not happen," I do not believe, at least at first blush, that we are allowed by policy to synthesize those separate criticisms into a single unified criticism. Also, I do not believe that accurately reflecting a source containing such a statement violates WP:NPOV. Now, if a source says that "Judaism and Christianity are false religions because they are based on the Bible, and events depicted in the Bible did not happen," we should definitely reflect that here or wherever else it occurs.

In regard to your assertion "the actual criticism is directed at the Tanakh/Old Testament", again, I'll think about it, but initially I don't agree, since I think to make that jump again violates WP:NOR--it's not up to us to decide what the source means, but rather to reflect what it says. It's not that I don't see your point, however. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A few comments:

• The section under question is not "Criticism of Tanakh", it is "Crticism that foundations of Judaism are not historically accurate"
• Applying Jayjg's suggestion to the article Judaism would lead us to believe that Judaism article should not include any discussion of the Tanakh or Torah, yet those texts are prominently discussed throughout the Judaism article, and the word "Torah" appears 86 times in that article. Should all Tanakh-related content be removed from Judaism article because it is already covered in more detail in Tanakh? Of course not.
• There are other Judaic religious texts, including the Talmud, that include extensive discussions and elborations on the historical events that critics claim are not accurate. Removing the content from this article and directing the user to Tanakh or Criticism of the Bible would not facilitate integrating other Judaic religious texts that elaborate on the (allegedly false) narratives.
• There are many critics that discuss this criticism in the context of Judaism only (not in the broader sense of "any religion that references the Tanakh")
• Although Christianity does respect some portions of the Tanakh (such as Genesis) Christianity ignores most of the Tanakh, including most of Leviticus and Numbers. Generally speaking, Christianity ignores those portions of the Tanakh that are addressed specifically to the Jews (chosen people, laws to be followed, etc)
• Even if the section were devoted to the Tanakh, there is no WP policy that says content cannot be replicated in two articles.
• Consensus for this article is that this is a WP:Summary Style article, which demands that content be replicated (that is, this article should contain a summary of the topic-specific article).
• The Criticism of Christianity article contains a summary-style discussion of historical accuracy issues of its foundational narratives,and that section references Biblical Criticism with a "see also" tag. That approach is helpful for readers and should be followed in this article.
• Religions are often formed by branching off from prior religions, and the new religions often nominally incorporate the parent religion's texts. But criticisms of those texts still apply to the parent religon. For instance, when the LDS church branched off from the Mormon church (and both still use the Book of Mormon) it is still valid to address the criticisms of the Book of Mormon in the article on the parent church (and it is, at Criticism_of_mormonism#Criticism_of_sacred_texts ).
• Many religions are based on narratives that involve myths, miracles or exaggerated stories. Criticism of the plausibility of these narratives are documented for each major religion in the respective "Criticism of someReligon" articles, for example:

-Criticism_of_christianity#Biblical_criticism

-Criticism_of_islam#Truthfulness_of_Islam_and_Islamic_scriptures

-Criticism_of_mormonism#Criticism_of_sacred_texts

There would have to be a compelling reason for the Criticism of Judaism article to be treated differently than the the other religions in this encyclopedia.

Bottom line: Nuujinn is correct - we need to focus more on sources, and if sources discuss the criticisms of those narratives in the context of Judaism then this article should follow that lead. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Noleander — you say, "There would have to be a compelling reason for the Criticism of Judaism article to be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia." Not true, or at least not based on policy. You've been presenting this reasoning repeatedly and it is faulty. I've asked you before to show me policy to support this reasoning, and I don't think you have. Articles do not need to conform with other articles. You mention the Criticism of Christianity article, the Criticism of Islam article, and the Criticism of Mormonism article. These are separate articles. Editorial decisions made there don't create any compulsion that this article follow suit. This is the last time that you presented the same reasoning on this Talk page. I tried to point out to you that at least in my opinion that reasoning is flawed. I don't think you addressed my point that time or on previous occasions that this has come up. I feel that arguments concerning the development of this article should address the factors that are specific to this article. Newcomers to this Talk page might mistakenly assume that another article sets a precedent that this article is obliged to follow, but I do not think that policy creates any such relationship between articles. Therefore I think we should confine our reasoning and argumentation to that which is particular to this article alone, and not create the impression that editorial decisions at another article imply that this article follow suit. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you suggesting that we may not use better articles as examples? I realize that there's no compulsion by policy to judge one article on the basis of other articles, but surely it is not a violation of policy to look to better articles in an attempt to improve this one. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — they are not "better" articles. They are "different" articles. Concerning policy, they are "separate" articles. Editors new to this Talk page receive the misimpression that this article is required to follow other articles, by the repeated notion conveyed in statements like this of 5 days ago. That is a link to an edit which says "Unless there is some reason why Judaism should be treated differently than those other religions, that guidance from the other Talk pages is useful for this article. Can you provide a reason why Judaism should be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia?" Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I do think they are better articles than this one at this point. Certainly, we are not required to follow other articles, and each article should be evaluated on its own merits. But that's not what I asked you. I asked you if you believe that policy forbids us from following the example set by other similar articles. According to WP:OSE, 'Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.' That suggests to me that we are indeed free to use other articles as touchstones so long as we're not violating policies. Indeed, as a writer, I can hardly conceive not using other articles as general guides. As for newcomers becoming confused, there are a wide variety of opinions expressed here that I'm sure many experienced editors find confusing, but I'm sure appropriate guidance will be provided as needed to any newcomers who stumble in here. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We should not be seeing one religion through the lens of another religion. As individuals we may look to other articles for suggestions concerning this article. But when presenting such ideas on this Talk page we should be framing our suggestions in terms that are particular to this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that by following the structure of various Criticisms of Religion X article, we are "seeing one religion through the lens of another religion," but rather seeking consistency in style and structure. I believe that since the other articles Criticism of Religion X have sections dealing with the historical accuracy of foundational documents, and since we're moving to a summary style article, there is sufficient reason to leave the section in this article. Is there a policy that requires us to frame our suggestions in terms that are particular to this article? And do you believe that policy forbids us from following the example set by other similar articles? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — it is misleading to suggest that this article should follow the form of another article. In point of fact this article has nothing to do with any other article. Other articles are separate. You certainly are welcome to look to and take inspiration from other articles, but it is misleading to urge other editors to endeavor to craft this article to conform to another article, because any other article is a separate article, bearing no connection to this article. That type of argumentation might be OK if it were just stated once or twice, but in fact it is repeated over and over on this Talk page. The recurrent theme here is that other articles set a precedent and this article is expected to follow it. No such relationship between articles exists. But if you are aware of any such relationship, especially one enshrined in policy, bring it to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you're not going to answer my question, which is a shame because I'm really trying to understand your position. I think the article is on it's way to conforming to the manual of style for summary style articles. I think that WP:OSE does allow us some latitude look to other articles for examples of style and structure. I do not think looking at other articles entitled "Criticism of X" where X is a religion constitutes looking at one religion through the lens of another. I do not know of any policy that forbids following the examples set by other articles as a general rule, although I'm well aware that that is not a carte blanche to violate specific policies, nor does it mean that this article should not be judged on its merits alone. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your statement I'll think about what you're saying, but my first reaction is that what you are proposing violates WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH, as has been explained in many comments, it's the current content of this article, which is a fairly egregious violation of WP:SYNTH. If one is being strict with WP:SYNTH, then where are the sources in the sources describing these as "Criticisms of Judaism"? Do they actually describe them that way? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure such are required. I take it you are asserting that a source would have to explicitly use the phrase "criticism of Judaism" for the topic to be included here? I tend to think that if there's a source that, for example, asserts that Purim encourages genocide, one could argue that that assertion is a criticism of Judaism (in the sense that it's common knowlege that an accusation of genocide is a criticism). But I think a discussion of that nature best fits the NOR Noticeboard, since it would affect all "Criticism of X" articles. Shall we bring it up there? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn — this article has nothing to do with any other article. It takes the course of its own development in accordance with editorial decisions made here — not at other articles. We are trying to persuade other editors to adopt the form of the article that we favor. But we are not permitted to engage in just any argumentation. It would be in completely bad form to mislead other editors in order to get them to support our ideas concerning the article. Misleading persuasiveness includes telling other editors that another article points the direction that this article should go in:

1. ) Noleander (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"There would have to be a compelling reason for the Criticism of Judaism article to be treated differently than the the other religions in this encyclopedia."

2. ) Noleander (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Why should Judaism be treated differently that Christianity or Islam?"

3. ) Noleander (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Unless there is some reason why Judaism should be treated differently than those other religions, that guidance from the other Talk pages is useful for this article. Can you provide a reason why Judaism should be treated differently than the other religions in this encyclopedia?"

The above 3 comments do not belong on this Talk page. This article has nothing to do with any other article. The above comments are based on the reasoning that another article exists in a form that this article should exist in as well. That is misleading. No such relationship exists. What exists are separate articles. Please use persuasiveness and argumentation based on this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it is not possible for a summary style article to not have any relationship to other articles, since its purpose is to aid navigation. And I believe WP:OSE does allow us some latitude look to other articles for examples of style and structure, as I've said. What policy forbids us from following the example set by other similar articles, assuming that in so doing we do not violate other specific policies? It's an honest question. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing "forbids" you from consulting another article. You shouldn't be misleading other editors. There exists no "follower" article and no "leader" article. This article need not follow the "lead" found at another article, yet that is suggested not just once or twice, where it would be an innovative idea, but it is repeated as if it were dogma. The repetition implies solid grounding for the suggestion. It has already been repeated too many times. It is already probably leading editors astray. The fact of the matter is that this article need not follow the lead of another article. No editor should assume that the form taken by another article has bearing on the form that this article should take. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not believe I am misleading anyone. I've been very careful in my phrasing, and sought to emphasize that relevant policies must be adhered to. Repetition implies nothing, and I seriously doubt any editors are being led astray by this discussion--I think for most editors it a case of TLDR. I'm glad that we agree that this article need not follow the form of other articles. But absent a policy prohibiting use of other articles as touchstones in matters of style and format, and given that some latitude, but not a carte blanche, is provided for same in WP:OSE, I just don't see that Neolander's comments are as offensive or dangerous misleading editors as you appear to regard them. You said Neolander's "above 3 comments do not belong on this Talk page," on what policy is that assertion based? Again, an honest question, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from--certainly you do not have to agree with him, but your statement is very strongly worded and I'm curious what policy supports it. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take policy to object to someone misleading other editors. You are right that repetition doesn't matter — misleading statements shouldn't even be said once. If you have a good reason why a certain editorial direction should be taken in an article, that should be sufficient to convince other editors of the wisdom of your suggestion. This article is not beholden to any other article in any way. There is no policy that this article has to follow another article. It is also true that there is no policy that says that another article has to follow this article in any way. Statements to the effect that another article takes on a certain form therefore this article should take on that form are irrelevant. But that does not prevent other editors from thinking that they are relevant. If you have a valid reason for an editorial direction to be taken by this article it is your responsibility to frame your argument in terms relevant to this article — not to suggest that this article is responsible to follow another article. By the way, I didn't say or imply anything about anything being "offensive or dangerous." Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position, and I've refactored my comment. I will point out again that I'm not claiming that this article should "follow" another article, but rather that we may be able to use WP:OSE as justification to look to other articles for guidance on matters of style and structure, so long as we do not violate other specific policies. If I am misleading other editors with that statement, or if you believe that I'm violating a policy, please point me to the policy I am violating. You said Neolander's "above 3 comments do not belong on this Talk page," on what policy is that assertion based? There are a lot of policies with which I am unfamiliar, so please tell me what I am missing. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You say, several posts up, "I think that WP:OSE does allow us some latitude look to other articles for examples of style and structure." Let me respond to that now. If you are going to "look to other articles for examples of style and structure," doing so should involve reasoning. Merely stating that another article exists implies that policy supports that one article should conform to another article. In the absence of reasoning involving the two articles being compared you are misleading the other editors because you are conveying that the two articles are connected in a more rigid way than is the case. Policy could compel one article to follow another article, but only if such policy existed, and obviously policy of that sort doesn't exist. Reasoning alone connects two articles. If you wish to argue that this article must conform for instance in "style and structure" to another article, then you have to present that case. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that does not answer my questions, and I would ask that you, as a matter of civility, please take greater care in accurately representing what I am saying. I do not agree that "Merely stating that another article exists implies that policy supports that one article must conform to the "style and structure" of another article." Please note that I do not 'wish to argue that this article must conform for instance in "style and structure" to another article', nor am I "repeating a mantra that this article should do as another article does," but rather I am objecting to your assertion that Neolander's commments drawing a comparison between this and other similar are somehow inappropriate and misleading. I am not aware of any policy that suggests it is improper for Neolander to bring up such a comparison here on this talk page. I am not aware of any policy that would suggest that my assertion that WP:OSE suggests we may look to other articles for questions of style and structure is improper. If you are aware of such a policy, please, point me to it. Whether we decide to use other articles as touchstones is a completely different question, and one to which I do not have an answer at this time, but I believe we have the right to discuss the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are inappropriate. Any statement by anyone merely drawing a comparison between two articles in the absence of accompanying reasoning is inappropriate. Without reasoning, the presentation of that other article can mean nothing but what our free associational capacities can lead us to believe. And in this context one thinks: policy. This is an organization — policy tends to trump reasoning, except in doctrines like IAR. If you simply state that Article A exists in one form and follow that with the interrogative, "Why shouldn't Article B exist in that form too?", the immediate thought that leaps to mind is that there must be a reason that Article B should conform to Article A. If you want to eliminate the possibility that another editor assumes that some good reason — such as policy — suggests that one article should follow another article's example you have to provide your own reason. I believe that in every instance — certainly the three above — that reason is absent, leaving the other editors looking on with little alternative than to assume that some policy supports the conformity between articles that you are arguing for. Please provide reasoning if you wish to draw other articles into the discussion taking place on this Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I just do not agree with "Without reasoning, the presentation of that other article can mean nothing but what our free associational capacities can lead us to believe", and I think at this point you've making large leaps of logic that are simply not warranted--this is a policy discussion on a talk page in wikipedia, not a class in psychology. I assume good faith on the part of other editors, new and old, I assume they have enough sense to follow discussions of policy and can think for themselves. And I'll point out, just for clarity, I do not object to you arguing about what we should do with the article, that is clearly part of discussion, but I strongly object to your characterization that our discussion is misleading via a vis policy, and that we should not engage in such discussion. I've asked you to point to some policy that prohibits the kind of discussion I and Neolander have been engaging in and to which you object, and so far, you have not done so. Let me know when you are willing or able to do so and I'll be happy to reconsider the matter--otherwise, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You say that "…I strongly object to your characterization that our discussion is misleading via a vis policy…" I did not say that, "our discussion is misleading via a vis policy." What I tried to articulate was that your reference to other articles without accompanying reasoning is problematic. If you want to invoke other articles and their form factors, which differ from this article, you also have to be providing reasoning as to why this article should be made to conform, at least to some degree, to the entirely separate articles to which you refer. That reasoning is absent. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is absent, because that's not the argument I was making. The argument I was making is that as far as I know, there is nothing misleading about anything Neolander said, or anything that I said, and as far as I know, there's no policy prohibiting us from discussing this article by comparing it to other similar articles, at the very least in terms of style and structure. I've said all I care to on the subject, here, you can have the stick. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You say, immediately above, "there's no policy prohibiting us from discussing this article by comparing it to other similar articles." Yes, discuss it by comparing it to other articles, but in so doing, please provide reasons why this article should be brought in conformance with those other articles that you are comparing it to. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Nuujinn can provide a reason why this article could be improved in any way, since its very existence falls outside the bound set by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the coverage it contains conflicts directly with content policy. As stated earlier, its not that the scope of the article should be changed, the problem is that it has no defined scope other than those originating from editorial opinion. There are several implications that he and other editors should be aware:

1. This article topic fails WP:MADEUP, since it is not a topic which is studied or written about in the world at large. Criticisms of Judaism are directed towards such topics as specfic tenets of Jewish belief, and it is standard practise to assign coverage of those criticism to those topics which the criticism address;
2. This article was created specifically in contravention of WP:COATRACK[4] and its main purpose is to proivde a platform for soapboxing;
3. That there are no reliable, third party sources that address this topic, so it fails WP:BURDEN;
4. The definition and description lead paragraph of the this article are based solely on the opinions of the editors who contributed to it and as such fails WP:OR;
5. The article's creation, its continued existence, the contributions to it and the coverage it contains directly and deliberately contravene WP:NPOV.

I conclude that to continue to "improve" this article would be in contravention of Wikipedia's entire range of content policies. Therefore, the only constructive course of action is to move the attributed content to other articles, and to make this article page a redirect to the article Judaism. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate the article for deletion. Before you do, though, you may want to review the two AfDs identified at the top of this Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't with the topic so much as the material chosen to fill it. It's possible to have a policy-complaint article on this topic, but obviously not with the stuff that's in here now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I have a good idea! How about we get on with continuing to improve the page, as stated right at the top of this talk thread. Maybe, then, with improved sourcing, this whole discussion will be a moot point (and if not, there is always AfD). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving inappropriate material to the correct article will obviously improve the page, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Also, it's unclear how one can "continue" a process that has not yet started. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself vote 12 for "delete"' compared to the 27 who voted for "keep," Gavin. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he's suggesting that editors here follow the guidance of the AfD (and its closer), which suggested dealing with the NOR and NPOV issues, rather than compounding them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)