Talk:Jewish outreach

For differences in those groups

• Please see Talk:Baal teshuva#Orthodox Jewish outreach unlike other Jewish outreach?--יודל 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism in not "Jewish" outreach

Hmm, why did Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) first include Messianic Judaism here [1] with the self-justification: "added 4th group of jews who claim that they are jews and do outreach as their main mision as a jewish caouse." (If I claim that I am a millionare, does that make me into one? Saying something does not make it so), and then delete it? He did the same at {{JewishOutreach}}, adding Messianic Judaism [2]. It would be totally outrageous to claim that by converting a Jew to Christianity that it's a form of formal "Jewish outreach" in any way shape size or form. IZAK 07:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Look in the history [3] and everything will be clear, because some believe the Reform and Conservative and the Zionist to be the same Jews as the Messianic Jews but since it is the minority opinion it was reverted back.--יודל 12:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are playing games with edits, and it's not funny. So far on Wikipedia this has not been accepted. In any case, according to logic and theology, the Reform and Conservatives do not claim to be Christians whereas the Messianics do claim to believe in Jesus and that makes them part of the Christian religion (because noone can believe in Jesus and be part of Judaism at the same time -- Judaism says so.) So far, the Reform and the Conservatives do not believe in Jesus and if they ever did do such a thing officially then they would no longer be part of Judaism. IZAK 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen the Reform are far more removed from any Religion than the Christians, never mind the Jewish Religion. But it does not matter for me, becaouse Jewishness is not only a religion. If the mother is a Jew then the kid is a Jew no matter where and what he practices. Lets not go into the numbers where more Jews are; in a reform temples or a Messianic outreach centers. I reverted my edit simply on this fact that the Reform consider themselves Jews and the Messianics do not, and my personal opinion does not come into my editing pattern at all. So it was my mistake and i apologized long before you decided to bring this up. Thanks for bringing it up but i don't see why it is impotent since i already reverted my edit long ago and the edit was not there for more then 15 minutes.--יודל 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because, like Kerry who "supported the Iraq war but voted against it" you have flip-flopped so many times on subjects and issues which requires that all your moves be watched for erratic editing that may conceal other problems. For example, to remind you: You first cut out a huge chunk from the original Baal teshuva article and moved it to a new article that you created Orthodox Jewish outreach. However when that article was nominated for deletion [4] you agreed to have it deleted. So why did you remove material from that article and move it to Orthodox Jewish outreach and then agree quickly to have it deleted? You already told me that you want to "destroy my work" on Wikipedia and since I was one of the original contributors to the Baal teshuva article which had been around for over FOUR years, it became a target. So that was a neat trick, but you failed, because the article was kept. You then did the same thing with the AJOP article, which you created first and then when it was nominated for deletion [5] you flip-flopped and then voted to delete it because you saw the improvements that I had made to it with sources and style. The question was then posted by someone whether the two articles Baal teshuva and Orthodox Jewish outreach were needed since due to your cutting and pasting they had the same content. I also requested input, and this is where the debate at Talk:Baal teshuva came in, about organizing the topic in a more systematic way. My proposal was to create a new article called Baal teshuva movement which I did. It is about the movement of the people who become part of what has become widely-known as the "Baal teshuva movement" and I finally moved some material from the Baal teshuva article about this into it. The remainder of what was in the original Baal teshuva article, since it deals with the rabbis and organizations that do outreach/kiruv work, is now in the Orthodox Jewish outreach article (which you created and I improved) which I then tidied up. I painstakingly wrote the new Baal teshuva movement article and cited many reliable sources from secular academics and from some Jewish sources. Of course, you has had a fit. You did not like the new article and you especially despise the word "movement" in it in spite of the fact that I have cited numerous sources, and many more which can be found when Googling for "Baal teshuva movement." As for the Baal teshuva article itself, my proposal was to turn it into a disambiguation page [6] leading to at least three ways for a start, to Orthodox Jewish outreach (because previously secular and unaffiliated Jews who join Orthodoxy are referred to as ""Baal teshuvas"), to Baal teshuva movement, and to Repentance in Judaism (because the process of repentance in Judaism is called "Teshuva" and a penitant, meaning all Jews, is a "Baal teshuva"). In my re-organization, the term "Baal teshuva" should be part of the Repentance in Judaism article where it belongs for logical and theological reasons. The latter-day "Baal teshuvas" and the associated "Baal teshuva movement" are a still unfolding modern-day phenomena of Jewish history. But you didn't like that I made the Baal teshuva page into a "disambiguation" page and re-pasted material about what a "Baal teshuva" is from the Repentance in Judaism page, and added a "See also" on it to Baal teshuva movement and Orthodox Jewish outreach and the rest. Now, as the discussion has moved on, you have been praising the efforts of Christian missionaries [7] and now here as well comparing them to the work of Jewish outreach workers or to Reform Judaism. Your edits are indeed worrisome for they lack consistency and so one can never tell when the WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT axe will fall. IZAK 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's also pretty obvious that you are not playing with a full deck because you simplly never call the Baal teshuvas by their name correctly. With you it's "Baaly Thsuvas " or "Baly thsuvas" or "Baally Tshuvahs" or "Bally thsuvahs" showing utter disregrad and disrespect to the very subject you discuss. IZAK 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Izak writes: you have flip-flopped so many times. My answer: I have not flip floped once! changing an editing patern due to a realization of a policy is not called flip flop.
2. Izak writes: You first cut out a huge chunk from the original Baal teshuva article and moved it to a new article that you created Orthodox Jewish outreach. My answer: Talk:Baal teshuva#The fuss? answer #4.
3. Izak writes: So why did you remove material from that article and move it to Orthodox Jewish outreach and then agree quickly to have it deleted? My answer: Talk:Baal teshuva#The fuss? answer #5.
4. Izak writes: You already told me that you want to "destroy my work". My answer: see here
5. Izak writes: You then did the same thing with the AJOP article My answer: Talk:Baal teshuva#The fuss? answer #8.
6. Izak writes: you especially despise the word "movement" My answer: See that this is a consensus concern of 2 users who think this is too much of a POV pushing, against only you. thats not only my thinking. see this at Talk:Baal_teshuva#Baal_teshuva_movement.
7. Izak writes: I have cited numerous sources, and many more which can be found when Googling for "Baal teshuva movement." My answer: Non reliable independent whatsoever. See this discusion at Talk:Baal_teshuva#Are the Bally thsuvahs a Movement?
8. Izak writes: my proposal was to turn it into a disambiguation page My answer: Which was rejected and rightfully so, see more about this at Talk:Baal_teshuva#Solution: Disambiguation
9. Izak writes: I made the Baal teshuva page into a "disambiguation" page My answer: against the outcome of the discussion. Talk:Baal_teshuva#Solution: Disambiguation
10. Izak writes: you have been praising the efforts of Christian missionaries [8] My answer: Stating facts is not praise.
11. Izak writes: one can never tell when the WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT axe will fall. My answer: But you can hope and pray that the one who was blocked 10 days has learnt some other lesson.
12. Izak writes: pretty obvious that you are not playing with a full deck My answer: Thanks for making the case who has a full deck here. Baal means singular, baaly with the y in the end notes the plural, so one man is Baal and when we look at more than one it is baaly.--יודל 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least we have both stated our case/s. (Oh, and good English this time around, I wonder who was typing this up now...?) IZAK 11:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What's this about "outreach"?

I edited the lead to this dab page...I assume I'm correct in assuming that what's being referred to here is qeruv ("kiruv" to say it the way most people seem to). I added the "Christianized" because qeruv does not have the meaning of "reaching out" (which gives me mental pictures of Christians grasping at people to steal their souls) so much as of "pulling toward oneself", albeit in this case "pulling toward Hashemself". I realize the Reform like to use the word "outreach" (although for them it is to try to involve non-Jewish spouses in Reform "Judaism" in a self-defeating effort to keep the progeny of mixed marriages from being completely ignorant of Judaism). The Reform generally make a muddled mixed up mess of confusing Tiqun `Olam with Qeruv (as do many Conservative Jews) and miss both boats in the process. Relevancy: neither Tiqun nor Qeruv are a part of what the Reform are referring to when they say "outreach". (It would be qeruv if there were anything of substance to be drawing its victims close to, but there just simply is nothing there, so it's not genuine qeruv.) That's my polemic for the evening. Fire extinguisher stands ready. Tomer^talk 11:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The orthodox have indeed adopted the word Outreach. And re your edit [9] Please clarify what does the word Outreach have to do with Christians?--יודל 11:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Where have "the orthodox" (whatever that really means) adopted the word "outreach"? (To my knowledge, "the orthodox", indeed most of "the conservative" stick to the word "kiruv" [sic].) As for my assertion that it is the Christians who use this word, just do a google search. Tomer^talk 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AJOP isn't Reform nor Christian nor Conservative and they use Outreach in their name. I did a goggle search and the results are in, the Christians do not use this word more than the Jews[10]--יודל 12:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have selective vision. The first link is Christian, as are most of the sponsored links. As it happens, only 4 of the links (including one to this page) that appear in the first 20 pages of that search are even remotely Jewish-related, while a great many are Christian-related. Tomer^talk 12:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, btw, have you noticed that the AJOP article you refer to says that people who are involved in what you vaunt as "outreach" refer to themselves not as "outreach professionals/workers/volunteers", but rather "kiruv professionals/workers/volunteers"? Tomer^talk 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK i grant you this, Kiruv is more used than Outreach in Orthedox circles. but where is your source that Outreach is something of a Christian origin?--יודל 12:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Outreach is of Christian origin, I said use of the word "outreach" to [horribly mistranslate] qeruv is a reflection of Christian usage rather than an accurate translation of the meaning of the word qeruv or what qeruv entails. Tomer^talk 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tomer: To use the word "Christianized" on this page and in this context is WP:NONSENSE (viz: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever") and not really amusing. IZAK 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? If I thought of myself as "amusing", I'd give stand-up comedy a try... I take great offense at your characterization of my saying that "outreach" is a Christianized mistranslation of qeruv falls under the rubric of WP:NONSENSE. Tomer^talk 05:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article naming

The naming conventions seem, at least to my interpretation, to prefer names such as Outreach in Orthodox Judaism, etc., over the current names. Comments? Tomer^talk 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Let's leave that for now. We went through Orthodox Jewish outreach and arrived at Orthodox Judaism outreach to obviate utilizing the "Jewish" word, since that word, connected as it is to the word Jew, also refers to the ethnicity and not just the religious notion. I think the important thing is to stress the branch of Judaism first since that is the source of the type and methods of the outreach that emanates from it. Thus Orthodox Judaism automatically gives rise to Orthodox Judaism outreach; Conservative Judaism has Conservative Judaism outreach, and from Reform Judaism comes a unique brand of Reform Judaism outreach. I think though, that for now, we should try to focus on filling the articles with real content and the question of how to fine-tune article names at the end of the day is not critical right now, and so Tomer, for example, what can you contribute to the Conservative Judaism outreach article, please? Thanks a lot for your input. IZAK 09:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)