Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

}}

Sources on criticism

I don't know if this is helpful but his is a search on criticism of Judaism and there is one by Zeitlin on cast doubts on the scriptural account of the history of Israel and another by B Gerhardsson criticizing oral transmission of the texts. One appears to be Christian scholar critiques and another by NW Cohen putting Judaism on the defensive from a Darwinistic view. The phrase Criticism of Judaism is used in some titles. I like finding sources but this isn't my field of prime knowledge so I'll leave you to your debate on notability. Alatari (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

This comment is completely inappropriate and indicative of a BATTLEGROUND mentality. I am seriously considering opening an ANI report over this. Silverseren^C 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead; complaining about it here will do you no good. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment is directed to all, and to no one in particular. As a newcomer to this talk, it disappoints me to see how much editors want to talk about anything but sourced content for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Silver, your comment towards me at Jimbo's talk page were not inappropriate and rude?! If anything that lack of AGF was a more serious and damaging violation of wikittiquette than anything I said at Avi's talk page. Nor is this a proper forum for your airing of problems with me. How does that fit in with the functions of this talk page? It doesnt and your post COULD be properly deleted without any further discussion as it violates talk page policy. I have not violated any policy. I'm perfectly fine being brought to ANI over believing in what I believe in and working against those who will hurt Wikipidia by having an article such as this. Your very posting of this at this location is a wikitequtte violation and if we go to ANI I'll take this and your comment at Jimbo's talk page there as well. YOUR comment at Jimbo's talk page showed a battleground mentality. Editors who edit in glass houses shouldnt throw stones (or ANI threats). I am in full support of Bus stop and his following questions none of which were answered at the AfD.Camelbinky (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would like for me to delete this section, that is fine. I would have notified here anyway about the ANI report that I am in the middle of making at the moment anyways. Either way.

As for my comment on Jimbo's talk page, that was over an entirely different discussion and I am not in the habit of bringing up comments made in completely separate discussions. Regardless, I already apologized there. So that isn't relevant to this at all. Silverseren^C 00:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New approach - renaming anti-Judaism to replace this article

I agree with User:Space25689 is the discussion immediately above. There should be a "Criticism of Judaism" article, the argument that each religion should have a "criticism of" makes sense. The same should go for political and other philosophical positions. On that score I note Criticism of capitalism, Criticisms of anarchism, Criticisms of Marxism, Criticisms of socialism and others.

I note that:

• Anti-socialism redirects to Criticisms of socialism
• Anti-anarchism redirects to Criticisms of anarchism
• Anti-socialism redirects to Criticisms of socialism
• Anti-capitalism notes that for "arguments against capitalism, see criticism of capitalism"
• Anti-Marxism redirects to Anti-communism, and the section of the Anti-communism article that deals with "Objections to communist theory" directs people to "Criticism of communism" for providing a brief piece of information

By this logic, anti-Judaism should redirect to Criticisms of Judaism. Only the article "anti-Judaism" is in this case the better article. It should therefore be renamed to Criticisms of Judaism (note the s! this is what these other articles have and it is more objective as a title). Once that is done, the name "anti-Judaism" can be redirected there as well.

In support of this approach I further note:

• Anti-Christian redirects to Anti-Christian sentiment, it is basically a counter part for antisemitism. It does however state at the top "For criticism of the doctrines and practices of Christianity, see Criticism of Christianity"
• Anti-Islam suggests seeing either Criticism of Islam or Islamophobia (there are other options, not relevant for this discussion)
• Bahá'í Faith has an article, and there is an article on Persecution of Bahá'ís but there is no anti-bahai article
• Buddhism does not seem to have a criticisms of Buddhism, nor an anti-Buddhism

It seems to me that either there should be no "anti-religion X" articles, or there should be redirects to "Criticisms of Religion X" pages. The anti-Judaism article is out of place (under that title) but makes perfect sense if it were called "Criticisms of Judaism". This article is in very poor state compared to that one, which is essentially what this article should be.

Thoughts? Oboler (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reply Being against something ("anti") is not the same as being critical. They are two completely different concepts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ism schism is right. Anti and criticism are two different things. To be "Anti-something" is to be discriminative against that something whereas criticism of that something is not. Criticism of something does not mean it is anti-something, such as criticising aspects Islam does not mean you are anti-Islam. Discriminating against Islam is anti-Islam. The two are different things. Space25689 (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, "anti" implies discrimination, whereas "criticism" implies some measure of objectivity. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, anti is to be opposed to the concept, to criticise is to object to an aspect or aspects of that concept. Both are very different. For instance, one might be anti-socialist, meaning they oppose socialism, whereas one might be socialist but criticise aspects of socialism. See, the two are very different. Space25689 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming is not the problem. The problem is one of concept. Criticism articles are simplistic. They result in awful writing. That is because they set up artificial areas for discussing a subject. Good writing involves incorporating a variety of approaches to a variety of aspects of a subject. Criticism is not separate from general writing on a subject. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The same rules apply to this and other articles as to all articles on Wikipedia, rules of NPOV, reliable sources and so on. They should apply here equally as they do elsewhere. Deletion is not the answer to content dispute. Space25689 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) But it is artificial subject matter. Criticism is not apart from general writing on a subject. One does not need a criticism article. What one needs are articles on subjects. That is the norm for good writing. Most Wikipedia articles are on subjects. It is a contrivance to set aside criticism for a separate article. The main article associated with this article, for instance, is the Judaism article. Criticism can be contained in that article. If space constraints require articles on subjects that might be found within the Judaism article, but perhaps not explored thoroughly enough, there can be, as there are, separate articles on subjects found within the general subject area of Judaism. But the important point is that they are subjects of their own. They explore many aspects of the subject matter that defines them. Within those articles is the natural place to find criticism, not in separate articles set aside just for criticism. A criticism article is an artificial construct. It is the handiwork of editors who failed to integrate naturally occurring factors into general writing on a subject. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But deleting improper content is the answer to NPOV violations. Moreover, each one of these is addressed in their own proper articles, or have complete articles of their own (e.g. Judaism and slavery) Making a new, jumbled, unclear article that cannot even have a reasonably clear criterion for inclusion is not appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So instead of deleting the article and therefore removing all criticism of Judaism from Wikipedia, why don't you instead just remove content which is not NPOV and not supported by reliable sources? Deleting the article implies you wish to remove all criticism rather than fix the article. Space25689 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the seventh time , every one of the criticisms is already on wikipedia, either in their own articles (such as Biblical criticism or Gender and Judaism) or in proper parent articles (such as Shechita and Brit Milah). -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy against redundancy. And since the article is going to stay, we need to fill it with all appropriate material. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some good purpose that "redundancy" serves? Bus stop (talk)

But there is a policy against WP:UNDUE weight, and even if the article remains, it can not be filled with wikipedia violations. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue refers to material in an article, not material across articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is even worse, it creates a connection that does not exist prior to this article other than in perhaps the most ephemeral sense, as Bus Stop and Chesdovi have been pointing out for months. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What connection? That a criticism of Judaism is a criticism of Judaism? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought proponents had been arguing that Wikipedia policies are applicable only within articles, not across articles, now they argue the opposite. Space25689 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Undue: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Nowhere in there does it say that a category must cover the sources proportionally. Our readers view articles, not categories. The reason this article should stay is not WP:NPOV, but adherence to the community consensus which is once again proven in this article's WP:AFD. The material should stay because it's what the sources say and WP:NPOV says that all notable views by reliable sources should be published. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is based on verification, not truth. We document the information that can be sourced, regardless of personal opinions about it. Making an argument based on a personal opinion or prejudice or having a vested interest in either promoting or detracting from the subject of the article would mean having a COI. I think the users arguing against including information need to remember that. Silverseren^C 02:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No one argues those points, especially as the criticism in question is already on wikipedia in other places. The point in question, yet again, is that those criticims, are not criticisms of Judaism the religion but criticisms of people or texts which while perhaps are related to Judaism, are not Judaism itself. So verifiability and censorship notwithstanding, they are inappropriate for THIS article. Redundancy is not the issue, applicability is. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Community consensus is that criticisms of a religion's holy books is a criticism of that religion. Drop this word play, it's not convincing anyone. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please show where the consensus you reference exists? The fact that it may exist on those pages is irrelevant, as that may be in error. Secondly, please see WP:CCC. Thirdly, the RfC about it on this page shows no consensus in either direction, Fourthly, there is unquestionably significant concern on this page (as demonstrated in the RfC) that criticism of books does not equate to criticism of the religion. For someone who was concerned about censorship, you seem rather excited about quashing discussion. Remember that the strength of one's position is not measured by the volume at which one speaks or the dismissiveness with which one crafts their words. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the history of those articles. They're monitored by plenty of editors, so unless that material was added recently, we can infer that is has the consensus of the editors of those pages. Here's a more objective test, delete the biblical criticisms from one of those articles and see how quickly you get reverted. WP:WAX only works if you're talking about a single other article, not an entire range of articles as heavily monitored and editted as the ones we're discussing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — why are you convinced that an editorial position reached in one article translates into an editorial position on another article? Do you find that notion conveyed in Wikipedia bylaws? It is my opinion that actually other articles are pretty irrelevant — this is the article that we need to achieve consensus on — concerning issues particular to this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just one article. It's several articles. Several stable articles. And of course you would find the other articles irrelevant, they're exactly what undermines your argument. Anyway, I don't think you're trying to find a consensus, I think you're trying to win a political battle here, and will simply reject any proposals with the hopes that opposing editors will lose interest. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — One article or several articles — Why would an editorial position reached at one article (or several articles) translate into an editorial position at another article? Do you find that notion conveyed in Wikipedia bylaws? Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

When good faith editors are considering what to do with content that adheres to normal deletionist complaints (WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE), rather than trying to make the decision independently, they ask themselves, what has the community done? What is the precedent on Wikipedia? Afterall, that's what we're here to do; build an encyclopedia. In editorial disputes not entrenched in religious fervor, you'll see other articles brought up when considering what goes into the actual article. Once the norm is established, editors then contrast the current topic with the precedent. If the article's content differs in a convincing way from the precedent, the practice is changed. If not, we follow the community, and rightfully so. Wikipedia is not anarchy. Our decisions need to come from accepted practice and sources, not from our debatable understanding of content. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That is all nice, but I'm asking you if policy anywhere suggests that editorial decisions made at one article carry over to other articles. If this is just your personal conviction, then fine. But I don't think your personal inclination in these matters is as persuasive an argument as one in which you quote a few lines of text from policy. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, it was my fault for thinking you cared about the assumption of good faith. You clearly don't mind being known for the POV pusher you are. So nevermind, you can assume from this point forth that my comments are explicitly not directed at you. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking is that we just agree that no policy language exists to support the extension of a "consensus" reached at one article to another article. Can we agree on just that?

I am not pushing any "point of view." Sorry if I am too much of a stickler for language found in policy. Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Torah

Per the other Criticisms articles, which all have criticisms of their own specific religious texts, there should be a Criticisms of the Torah section in this article (and whatever subsections that would be divided into). Or, if you want to take it a step broader, the section should be on Criticisms of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, of which the Torah makes up but a third of it. Either way, following consensus in the other articles and the style implemented in them, this is one such section that should be included in this article, as it is specific to Judaism. Silverseren^C 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Per the other Criticisms articles"? From where do you derive that one article must somehow parallel another article? Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, they are all under the banner of a single Category, so they are accepted by the community as being categorically similar. Also, I did not say that it should parallel another article, I said that the other articles within the same category also having a similar section shows that community consensus agrees that Criticism articles should have a section on the religious book, or books, tied to that religion. Silverseren^C 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary, we already have a summary-style article that covers this, Biblical_criticism, is there a criticism of the Torah separate from the Bible? At most, I can see listing Bible criticism as a "See Also". -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That article is about the Christian Bible, which is radically different from the Tanakh, unless you're going to say that the holy books of Judaism and Christianity are one and the same. I think you would get quite a bit of opposition to that idea. Yes, they both incorporate the Old Testament, but they are written far differently and include sections that are not in each other. Silverseren^C 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have Pentateuchal criticism, Biblical studies, The Bible and history, Biblical archaeology, Historical method, Timeline of the Bible, Bible Criticism (online resources), Biblical exegesis, Dating the Bible, Science and the Bible, Biblical archaeology school, Documentary hypothesis, Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, Genesis creation myth, Adam, Historicity of Abraham, Flood geology, Historicity of the Exodus, Historicity of Moses, Historicity of the Book of Joshua, Historicity of David, Historicity of the United Monarchy, Historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel, Historicity of Ezra, and Historical accuracy of the Book of Esther to list a few. This is all in wikipedia already, and is listed in its proper places (see The Bible and history#See also for example. I am failing to see why having another place bringing disparate and unrelated topics, many unrelated to Judaism itself, helps. -- Avi (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Torah (or the Tanakh) is not unrelated at all, it is clearly directly about Judaism. Furthermore, listing other related articles has nothing to do with this article. That just means that we need to cover it in this article and link to others. That is the entire point of summary style. Silverseren^C 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense. You're making a fool out of yourself Avi saying that the JEWISH Bible is "unrelated" to the JEWISH religion. I bet all those articles you list mention it. Not to mention pretty much every Encyclopedia I could find mentions the Torah in sentence 1, 2, or 3 in their "Judaism" articles. You are clearly, unequivocally, objectively wrong. Drop this, and move on. And again, covering this criticism in another place does not mean we don't cover it here. WP:Undue does not apply, read the policy. WP:NPOV supports inclusion of the section, as it is indeed a criticism of Judaism and it is prominently covered by mainstream, reliable sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Related is not equal. Shall we bring in criticism of tanning processes because every sefer torah has to be written on kosher animal hide? -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Any criticisms which are supported by reliable sources should be covered on Wikipedia, whether as part of existing articles or as articles created to cover these criticisms. Wikipedia doesn't censor information, including criticisms. Space25689 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point again; criticizing the Bible is not criticizing Judaism, and we have plenty of articles discussing biblical criticism. -- Avi (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems to me that you're trying to impress your viewpoint on what this article should be, when that isn't how things are done. The other articles of this type have been formed over the past five years and have huge community consensus in what is contained within them. Thus, the fact that they contain criticisms about their holy books, extensive sections nonetheless, maintains the fact that community consensus is that criticism articles for a religion should, if it can be properly sourced (which it can), have a section on criticism for that religion's holy book. Your opinion does not trump consensus, Avi. Silverseren^C 22:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, the fact that errors may exist in one article does not automatically approve them for other articles. I do not see any consensus to add these sections, if anything, there are more editors opposing them than not. Consensus is what matters here, and there is no consensus to add these sections as of now. If other articles suffer from issues that are not addressed by experts in those fields, that is a shame, not something to be proud of. -- Avi (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You have continually referenced the Bible, but given no evidence why a section on the Torah should not be included on an article about criticisms on Judaism. Silverseren^C 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no defined entity known as a "criticism of" article. These are articles that start with the same two words. Wikipedia doesn't set up any guidelines for how articles beginning with the same two words relate to one another. I am not aware of any guideline that suggests that one article must for instance cover a topic that is covered in another article — even if that other article starts with the same two words. This type of consideration falls under the heading of editorial decisions made at the article in question. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They are called categories, that's how they relate to each other, they are in the Criticism of category. And a long-standing community consensus in the others would also extend to this one. Otherwise, you are off-balancing it in relation to the others and, as was mentioned by others, that would not be presenting a neutral point of view in relation to criticism articles. Now, if you disagree with a section of this heading, please propose other sections then that would be appropriate, something which neither you or Avi have done whatsoever. Silverseren^C 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Each article is written separately. Consensus applies to individual articles. The material found in an article is the result of editorial decisions at that article. The editorial decisions at one article don't extend to another article.

Furthermore WP:NPOV is a principle applicable within articles. WP:NPOV is not a concept intended to balance off one article against another.

You can present your argument by using other words. You are entitled to debate as you see fit. But you can't appeal to the Wiki principle of NPOV to support that argument, because NPOV isn't applicable between articles.

How could it be applicable between articles? Which articles would it be applicable between? And who would determine which two articles to compare with one another as concerns NPOV? Would it be applicable between any two articles that an editor chose to compare?

And furthermore, if you started making adjustments between two articles in accordance with the misguided application of NPOV, would you then make further changes to an article after it was compared to yet another article? And where would that end?

WP:NPOV operates within articles — not between articles. But if you think otherwise, please show me the policy language supporting the application of the principle of NPOV between articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources criticize Judaism by criticizing the Jewish Bible. Therefore, we must. 'Nuff said, case closed. Anything else is original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bible was a book that was around thousand of years ago. Judaism is a religion that took this book in its written state, interpreted it with an oral tradition as guide for living. Other religions have also interpreted it their own way. Most ctiticsim is based on a literal reading while Judaism's own interpretation does not concur with these literal meanings, eg. eye for an eye. Is this an issue? Does the plain and simple Bible text really represtnt Judaism, although it is their holy book? Disparaging accounts in the Bible are examined by the Talmud rabbis who more often than not provide a complimentary nad positive explanation, the "real" meaning which followers of Judaism are to accept. Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, original research. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Urm...to respond in a more objective way than Azure. It's great that you know these things, Chesdovi, but i'm afraid your personal knowledge doesn't matter, because it is original research. Like we've stated before, us editors have to work with the sources we find and go off of them, we can't inject our personal opinions, feelings, or knowledge into articles. We have to be objective recorders of information, that's all. Silverseren^C 19:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil, Silver. However, I think it is WP:SYNTH to say that "criticizing a book is equivalent to criticizing a religion". The original research is in making that leap. In general, sources should be used for exactly what they say; a source describing criticism of the bible is just that, nothing more. Unless that very same source, in and of itself, extends the criticism from the text to the religion as a whole, there is no legal wikipedia reason for its being here. It is original research/synthesis to bring textual crticisms here solely because an editor, or set of editors, shares an opinion that there is an equivalence or transitive relation between a text and a religion. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What would a source have to say in order for you to understand that the criticism of the text was a criticism of the religion? "I am criticizing the religion by criticizing the text!" ? Your willful ignorance is childish and unconvincing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Biblical criticism is based on the simple meaning of the biblical text. As the literal understanding of the bible is not generally accepted by Rabbinic Judaism (Judaism as it was practiced until 150 years ago), criticism of the bible for all intense and purposes cannot be regarded as a criticism of Judaism itself; maybe a criticism of Karaism which truly takes the text at face value. It would be out of place here citing as a criticism of Judaism the harsh retribution of an eye fore an eye in the literal sense when Judaism understands that verse as related to monetary compensation. Any criticism directed towards Judaism on account of its Bible would have to critcise the fact that Judaism accepted as sacred, a text which could be so easily misunderstood by the uninformed - why Judaism’s handbook has been written in such an ambiguous manner. Yes, the Bible is the holy text of Judaism, buts its application to Judaism is through exegesis and analysis of the text which does not concur with its literal meaning. If non-adherents of Judaism wish to criticise the bible, they do so with their understanding of it, not Judaism’s. And their criticism is not a criticism of Judaism, but of their holy book. If criticism can be found that criticises Judaism for accepting the Bible as its holy text, it can be added. Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Biblibcal criticism of Judaism can't be used because Jews don't think it is appropriate." Original research. Again, we do what the sources do, and this is how they criticize Judaism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 13:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AzureFury — if you are going to put quotation marks around something it should probably be a quote. No one said, "Biblibcal criticism of Judaism can't be used because Jews don't think it is appropriate," so I think it is questionable whether you should be posting it with quote marks. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion section below, Douglas Rushkoff, has information regarding criticism of sections of the Tanakh. That should be enough information to warrant creation of a section. The holy books of a religion relate directly to the religion, because the religion itself is closely related to, if not based off of them. For that reason, it is completely understandable to have a section of criticism of a holy book on an article about criticism of a religion. Silverseren^C 00:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Please read the comments in the sections below; there are a number of editors who believe Rushkoff by himself is not a notable enough critic of religion to support a section. -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Rushkoff proves WP:NOTABILITY is satisfied. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake is answered below. -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your broken analogy is explained below. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And responded; can we please keep individual conversations to one section each? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And reponded to the response, we definitely should move the discussion to the appropriate section. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Semantics and scope of the article.

Talk:Judaism had a very very long debate on whether to add the word religion into the lead sentence. Currently it reads is the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jews. but it used to read is a set of beliefs and practices originating in the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh, and explored in later texts such as the Talmud (no mention of the word religion at all). So according to those heavily debated and sourced words when you criticize Judaism you are not just criticizing a religion but a philosophy and way of life of Jews. (I wouldn't like my entire way of life criticized) According to the original phrasing you are not criticizing a religion but a set of practices stemming from the Tanakh. I'm not talking WP:WAX but defining Judaism from verified sources. I'm pointing at those sources and those debates as a way to define the scope of this article. 08:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think i'm clear exactly on what you're asking. I understand what you're saying, but not what you are wishing the scope to be. Silverseren^C 07:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the comments I read above seem to support the idea that this page is only a criticism of a religion but according to the sources at Judaism, Criticism of Judaism would be more than just criticism of a religion. To be in parity with the other articles that criticise religions then it would be Criticism of Judaism (religion) or Criticism of Jewish religion. It comes down to the fact that Judaism is an Ethnoreligious group. You aren't just criticising a religion but an entire ethnic group. That makes this article of a different breed than the other articles which have scopes limited to the religion. So I would like to see the scope limited to religion only. Anyway, does this add some new light to the scope issue? Alatari (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, you want to make the title of the article more specific, because almost all other religions do not have an actual culture attached to them. ...I can agree to a title change. It makes sense to me, at least. And is far more clear about the scope (though it doesn't get rid of any confusion about Holy Books, religious history, ect.) Though I have to say, I personally prefer the first one, "Criticism of Judaism (religion)", but i'm not entirely sure what the style guide says is more appropriate. Has this sort of thing even come up before? I suppose we could ask at the Wikiproject or the MOS page itself... Silverseren^C 08:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"because almost all other religions do not have an actual culture attached to them"? Silverseren, do you really believe that? Do you believe that all jews are part of one monolithic culture? I agree with the notion of limiting the scope of the article to religion only, but I find that particular statement deeply troubling. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a semantics question, but one that is already answered by using the word Judaism, if it was about the culture/ethnic group/nationality it would be Jews, by using the word Judaism you already are limiting it to the religion and not the ethnic group. Being a Jew is an ethnic or cultural or religious designation, being Jewish same thing, but practicing Judaism is religious only. Otherwise you could say being Catholic was cultural and ethnic, which its not, but being Irish (or Hispanic, or Polish, or Italian, etc) is the cultural/ethnic/nationality generally associated with being Catholic. In the case of Judaism ever since 1800 years ago we've stayed insular and have not encouraged people of other cultures etc to join us (last time we did encourage we got majorly screwed and this other religion sprang up...) so yes its a unique situation Judaism is in. Point is- its already narrowed in scope to being ONLY about the religion and not anything else.Camelbinky (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if it were nationality, best bet would be Israeli. Culturally or ethnically, I think better is Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, and Mizrahi Jews, but even those are gross oversimplifications. But as Camelbinky says, Judaism is a religion. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Being Jewish as a nationality is NOT the same as being Israeli. There are ethnic Arabs who are Muslims and Christians and other ethnic and religious groups who are Israeli by nationality due to be Israeli citizens; Israeli does not equal Jewish. Jews the world over are NOT Israeli by nationality but are Jewish by nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture. Israel is a country founded in 1948 and the only way to have a nationality of Israeli is to have been a citizen of that country (or I suppose descended from someone who was).Camelbinky (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The point I was trying to get at was that we already have articles on many of these aspects. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a nation largely of Jews, and if one is speaking of Judaism in terms of nationalities, Israel is a close as one could get to a nationality--but it makes no more sense to speak Judaism in terms of a nationality than it would be to speak of Shintoism as nationality. In any case, we have an article on Israel already. As you say, Judaism are not a nationality. Jews are bound by their religion, and a set of cultural values. As far a being an ethnic group, sure, but that's a multi dimensional matrix and gets complicated quickly. For example, I could argue that the 3rd generation Jews I grew up with in the southeastern united states have more in common culturally with Methodists in the same area than they do with the Jews in Yemen. But that's an extreme example, and more to the point, we already have articles on Yemenite Jews, Sephardim, Ashkenazim, etc, that cover the cultural and ethic aspects pretty well. So I'm agreeing with you that Judaism means the religion, and with Alatari in that this article should stick to the criticism of the religion and avoid criticism of the associated cultures. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly agree with you, Nuujinn. I just wanted to clarify that Israeli did not equal Jewish as that sometimes gets confused in Jewish and Israeli related articles, many of the first category have nothing to do with the second and vice versa.Camelbinky (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I was typing too fast and didn't pay enough attention to my wording. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the two of you believe that the scope of Judaism has no confusion because it should be widely understood that it is discussion of the religion aspects of Judaism, not the cultural, then i'm fine with leaving the title as it is, if you two are in agreement on that. Silverseren^C 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait... you agree... oh I change my mind and my position is now the opposite! HA! Just kidding! Thought a little humour might help. Yes, I am in agreement with Nuujinn that as long as the title is staying this title then the topic has to be restricted to only the religious aspects and not cultural. Which would mean we now have to discuss things in the article that are cultural and not religious and I'm sure that we can discuss them civilly- such as the divorce section is cultural, that is not religious, pretty much anything criticizing what the hasidim do is cultural, their quirks are Eastern European cultural traditions from being in a ghetto (an actual legally defined ghetto, not the term used today in the US as a "area of poor people"). Non-Jews, and many American Jews, dont realize things like placing little stones on top of a gravestone, no flowers at gravesites, curly sideburns, arent religious tenets, they are cultural quirks of Ashkenazi Judaism and in particular Eastern European. Yes, you can get LOTS of criticism about Eastern European Judaism from German and French Jews but its all about culture (in fact the word kyke was started as a slur by Western and German Jews against Russian Jews), but it isnt relevent to this article. Alot of what me and others dont like about this article is that it is trying to pull in criticism from within the Jewish community about the religion when most of that criticism is about culture and superstition that has creeped in.Camelbinky (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're in agreement about the scope, and I'm certain civil discussion will prevail. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion recommendation

Following on from the discussion at WT:NPOV, I would recommend deletion of this article, on the grounds that it is a made up topic, which has been created and developed through a process of synthesis. My grounds for believing this to be the case are that it is bizarre that this article contains 26 citations, but none of them address the article title, either directly or in passing. Although it contains significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, none of that coverage actually defines or addresses the subject of article's title directly or in detail, and hence I don't think there is any evidence that this topic is notable in its own right. Rather it is an amalgam of related sub-topics which are the subject of more balanced coverage in other articles. I do not believe that this article can ever comply with Wikipedia's content policies, because it lacks an externally validated definition.. I recomend that this article be deleted, and the coverage it contains be dispersed to those article topics which they address. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 04:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discussed, and rejected. Three days ago. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• The AFD closed just a few days ago and the community found that the article was notable. Silverseren^C 07:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that "Most "delete" arguments concern the content of the article, including its neutrality and the selection of topics which it covers. This is a class of problems that can be resolved by judicious consensus-based editing rather than deletion", but if the topic is made up, then I suspect the deletion would at least be justifiied, if not successful. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But, see, the thing is, most people do not think it is made up and do believe that it is an article and notable. Silverseren^C 08:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not, because it has been nominated for deletion twice. The problem is that there is no evidence to suggest it is notable, because there is no significant coverage that address the article title either directly or in passing. All of the article sources (all 26 of them) address other topics. It this was not a synthetic topic, you would expect at least one one of the sources to do so. For the same reason, you would not expect to see an article topic with the titles "Praise of Judasim", "Advocacy of Judasim" or "Advantages of Judasim". Just like "Criticism of Judaism", they are implausible article topics. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont have access to the entire database, but this is a partial listing of the library of congress classifications. The book i have been describing, nothing sacred, has as its LOC CIP data: Judaism-Essence, genius, nature, BM565.R87, which makes it part of 545-582..........Principles of Judaism (General). this list includes Apologetics, 648 (in praise of? not quite). We do have precedence for categorizing books into some fairly narrow topic ranges. It is true that this list does not have a section specifically labelled criticism of judaism. I am actually going a bit against my argument, but i want to see the bickering about "not notable" ended. here is solid evidence to use in our argument, either way. show your work, those who feel this should be deleted, please show how the majority of notable works that explicitly criticize Judaism, not as antisemitic rants, in part on in whole, do not count as a source for this article. I think its up to the "deletionists" to prove their case, not just say its so. I have stated elsewhere that im not comfortable with the "criticism of..." format for article names, but i dont have a better idea. here's the problem: things exist, in the world, and are notable. our job is not to come up with a set of vessels (article names), then based on our collection of vessels, fit only what is defined by the vessels into our encyclopedia. our job is to find new vessels that will ultimately hold ALL notable, verifiable knowledge and commentary. I have proven that at least some notable criticism of judaism exists, on at least some aspects of the "religion"(culture, people? try separating out these concepts in any indigenous group, you'll see our problem here). where do we put it? what emphasis do we give it? I really dont see how people can say it doesnt exist. Would some of you feel that a category of this name stay, but not have an associated article with it? there are 3 pages in the "criticism of judaism" category, all articles with this format. the "criticism of religion" category contains 17 sub cats and 68 pages, some are pages of individual authors. Would that work, to have only books and authors that critique judaism be categorized this way, and not have articles of this name? i dont agree with this, but it would be a way to allow for inclusion of this material in WP that would not require this article. criticism of Islam has 6 sub cats, 79 pages. does this show POV and a bias against islam and towards judaism at WP? no, unless notable articles have been suppressed in some way, systematically. criticism of christianity has few pages, but its sub cat, books critical of christianity, has 38 pages. I know this may be construed as otherstuff, but as is pointed out above, we have to start with long established precedents, and this is definitely a precedent that exists. eliminating one branch of this structure needs to be done with clear evidence that its different than the other branches. i dont see evidence that this subject is so different from its brethren ive listed here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You ask me how the majority of notable works that explicitly criticize Judaism, not as antisemitic rants, in part on in whole, do not count as a source for this article, and I put it to you that each one of these sources criticises a particular tenet of Jewish belief (each one of which is a separate topic in its own right) such as Jews as a chosen people or the Covenant (biblical) or topics related to Jewishness such as Zionism. It seems to me that simply adding all of these topics together to form a synthesis does provide a rationale for the creation of an article that fails WP:MADEUP. If this is a truly notable topic in its own right, then how come it does not have an externally validated definition, despite citing 26 sources? I say that this so called precedent for "Criticism of XYZ" type articles is based on the mistaken premise that a topic can be made up for no other reason that the title seems vaguely plausible even if there is evidence that this topic actually exists outside of Wikipedia. There may be categories which encompass many or several criticisms of Judaism, but a category (such as a library category) is not the same thing as a defined topic that has been the subject of real world study. It may be common to be criticised for simply being Jewish or Christian in the real world, but those criticisms don't stand up to scrutiny - there has to be some underlying reason for the criticism. And it is the same in Wikipedia: if there is a reason to criticise Judaism, then it is to those topics to which the related coverage should be directed, not some synthetic topic called "Criticism of Judaism" into which they have been artificially amalgamated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD indicates that there was no consensus that the article should be removed. Reading the opinions in the AfD makes it rather clear that there is a consensus that the article needs serious rewriting and care as to what goes in it. Most of the people opining it should be kept, IIRC, indicated that there was plenty of problems with the article and it could use careful editing if not a plain stub-and-rewrite. -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the topic is madeup, then these problems are symptoms of deeper problems. If a topic is made-up such that it is framed in such a way that the coverage cannot be balanced because its title excludes one set of opinions, then you have ask how it would ever be possible to resolve these differences of opinion. I put it to you that without an externally validated definition, this topic's scope and subject matter is defined only by editorial opinion (often mistaken for consensus), which is a shifting sand on which no rewrite can cure its ills, namely that it does not comply with any of Wikipedia's content policies. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this thread is nonsense. Wrong way to overturn consensus just reached at the AfD discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I just don't want people confusing a decision to keep the article in general with a decision to keep the article with the garbage in it. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at AFD is based on subjective opinion, but like shifting sand, opinion can change. Since this article conflicts with WP:NPOV is such an obvious way, sooner or later this article will come up for deletion again. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is doomed to failure because it never has depth. It is always a series of shallow vignettes that can never penetrate the potential depth that the subject matter holds.

It is only in an article that contains sufficient depth that any of these negative perspectives can gain powerful and meaningful representation. We are not going to do justice to any of the qualities and textures of any of these topics in an article that is doomed to perpetual shallowness.

The Judaism article provides the context for some negative views. But that article obviously has space limitations. It is in the articles on the subtopics within the Judaism article that both space and context can be found.

Good quality reliable sources are unlikely to contain exclusively positive or exclusively negative perspectives on any of the subtopics relating to the Judaism article. It is mostly in those articles (the subtopic articles) that most of this material belongs.

Also, good quality reliable sources are unlikely to contain all or most of the topics covered in this, the "Criticism of Judaism" article. That is an indication that the subject of this article is just an editorial artifice.

It is not out of the question that this article should exist. But its justification has to be weighed against the coherence and cogency of the realms carved out by the subtopic articles themselves.

There is no imperative that an article on Judaism even use the word "criticism." When a point is made that detracts from a subject it is understood to be "criticism." Negative points can and should be interspersed with non-negative points, both in the Judaism article and in the sub-articles that are spun off of it.

There is no need for this article, and it is sparsely if at all supported by reliable sources. That is, the subject of "criticism of Judaism" is not a substantial topic for an article, based on the availability of supportive reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The vote was roughly 27 keep, 11 delete. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus. This deletion discussion needs to stop. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not a matter of "consensus" when the issue is that this article does not comply with Wikipedia's content polices. You can say that the emperor has no clothes as much as you like, but the evidence has been set out before you that this article topic fails WP:MADEUP as there are no external sources to suggest it exist as a topic of that has been the subject of commentary outside of Wikipedia. Because this article conflicts so obviously with WP:NPOV, I think deletion is inevitable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that the majority of users disagree with you and think that it does comply. They do think the external sources link. Think all you want about it getting deleted, but this discussion right now is pointless. Silverseren^C 08:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To baldly assert that this "users disagree with you and think that it does comply" is disingenous. It seems to me that the viewpoint based on seeing criticism as a wall precludes any access to reality. This extreme attitude, which considers all reference to Wikipedia content policies as theoretical naivete, is in reality a perversion of of the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. If you have evidence that this is a recognised article topic that is the subject of reliable secondary sources in its own right, bring them forward by all means. None of the sources come from any publication with "Criticism of Judaism" in its title, nor to they address this topic directly or in detail; the only thing this article has with the topics it addresses is that they are related to Jewishness in some way. At the end of the day, if this is not a studies or commented upon in the real world, there is no rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has been "kept" on the specious argument that other articles exist starting with the same two words — "criticism of." But I don't think policy requires the existence of articles to "balance out" other articles. Arguably other articles need deletion. But if that is to be considered that is something totally to be taken up at those article's Talk pages. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know that a related topic is being discussed here. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that policy does not require the existence of articles to "balance out" other articles, but it does require articles to provide evidence that the topic exists to start with. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Errors!

Decided to check this out after seeing it on ANI, and I have a problem with this: "Critics of Judaism such as Baruch Spinoza,[1] Moses Mendelssohn,[2] and Mordecai Kaplan,[3] have criticized Judaism because its texts describe Jews as the Chosen People.[4]"

Reason being, I went to the 1st ref which can be found here --the one supporting the Spinoza ref-- and it does not say he "criticized Judaism because its texts describe Jews as the Chosen People" as this article claims. It says he was a pantheist and rejected a (transcendent) God, and as such there was "no entity that could select for itself a chosen people." People here need to read these things carefully and not go putting in stuff that they want it to say or think it says. Critics need to be careful and check references as well. Stellarkid (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking out and verifying the source on Mendelssohn, find that is mistaken as well! pg 48 [1] says of Spinoza and Mendelssohn, "they adopted different positions on many issues, including the doctrine of chosenness, and apparently had different impacts on the coming generations" -- "Despite the fact that neither of them, especially Spinoza, interpreted choseness in terms of a mission on the part of Israel..." ..So the only reference that can be used here to say that Mendellsohn along with Spinoza "criticized Judaism because its texts describe Jews as the Chosen People" is that neither viewed choseness "in terms of a mission on the part of Israel." (pg 48) The reference to pages 49-55 for Mendellsohn is faulty, since the part with respect to Mendellsohn does not start until page 55, with the exception of the one reference on page 48. And in fact the article is wrong in the claim about Mendellsohn as well for Gürkan quotes Agus quoting Mendelssohn as saying "Whatever the purpose of God may have been in singling out the Jews as the objects of special legislation, He cannot have intended to make the observance of the Torah a prerequisite for salvation." So while M didn't buy that only those who observed the Torah would be "saved," his comment on chosenness is not that he rejects it since (pg 57), Gürkan says "He sees them as a people 'chosen by Providence to be a priestly nation', a nation which 'throught its establishment and constitution, through its laws, actions, vicissitudes, and changes' will be a testimony among the nations to the 'sound and unadulterated ideas of God and his attributes'." Now with respect to the Judaic texts that "describe the Jews as the Chosen people" per the reference in the article, I think in order to say what is said about them, we must know what texts they specifically reject, rather than putting words in their mouths. So I would like to see this sentence either completely revised or totally abolished. So far it is plain wrong. Stellarkid (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Spinoza and others _did_ criticize Judaism because (1) they believed that a personal God, as described by Judaism, did not exist; and (2) they did not believe that Jews were chosen people. Read the sources again. Noleander (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)--

See [2] I have not read Spinoza's "Critique of Religion" (and even if I had, it would be WP:OR to give my OPINION or UNDERSTANDING of it in the article), but there exists scholarly works that interpret Spinoza as criticizing Judaism directly (and they proceed to deconstruct it) so this one may be valid. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the point that Noleander, Azurefury, and Silverseren seem to be missing. Much of what was added to this article is either unsupported or requires some "leap" to be able to make it a criticism of Judaism the religion. Criticism of G-d in and of itself is not criticism of Judaism any more than it is criticism of Islam; and if monotheism is not mentioned, it is the same as criticism of paganism. This kind of material is not within the scope of the article. Similarly, unless notable criticism is made of Judaism's interpretation of Biblical texts, I maintain that said criticism is out of scope in this article, as it requires the interpretation of the editor to make the connection between the Bible and Judaism, and that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If criticism on Judaism the religion, by notable critics of Judaism or religion in general, exists, then that absolutely belongs in this article, and, properly sourced, must be maintained. However, it seems very clear that there has been much added to this article over time that is out of scope, and that must be removed. Remember, the AfD indicated that there was consensus that the article should exist; not what it should contain. Reading all of the opinions in the AfD, it is clear that the majority of people believe that the article requires a serious re-evaluation of what is in it, and much care as to what should be allowed. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We understand that and have been trying to find new things that would work with the article. Can you help look for sources and subjects that would work with the article? Silverseren^C 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Google searching is prone to errors and bias, but some possible promising sources based on snippets would be:

• [3]
• [4]
• [[5]
• [6]
• [7]

-- Avi (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the same problem myself when going through the given sources. Some of those working to keep the article have not even bothered to check the sources themselves, see discussion at Deletion with out consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion with out consensus

There has been problems with deletion of mass amounts of info with out consensus. Please post info here for discussion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

User: Ism_schism has twice restored material that was moved, with assumed consensus, to Anti-Judaism on April 26. When this material was inadvertently re-added, I removed it only for Ism_schism to re-add it stating there was “no consensus on talk page”. I then removed it the second time adding the link to the closed discussion on this matter and Ism_schism again ignores it, re-adding it again. 2 mintues later he foolishly adds the following comment to the talk page discussion: "This is a relevant criticism for this article. Thanks.", without even provding an explanation why it should be. To add insult to injury he then created this new section headed "Deletion with out consensus". It seems the “preservationists” are also prone to “deletionist” behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, the issue is with restoration of material that ostensibly violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. without consensus. The deletions were performed over the past few months by multiple editors trying to fix the problems with this article. It is disingenuous at best, and outright misrepresentation at worst, to suggest that the deletions are the issue. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's how it looks to me too. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I count several voices in these discussions, including myself, who dispute the deletions and see in them invocations WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE that really reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, IMHO. Savant1984 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Being that the initial additions were against consensus, the deletions are merely restoring the article to the consensus version. Please justify the additions. -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty tough to get consensus with editors who ignore policy in their decision making. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, that's exactly howI've been feeling for the past few months :) -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly which policies are you using to excuse your deletions besides WP:CONSENSUS (which btw does not say the default action is to delete)? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it might be a moot point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which policies support the additions? Especially as they violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV, which is why they were removed shortly after Noleander first unilaterally added them. -- Avi (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe WP:I JUST LIKE IT? Chesdovi (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that is what is causing editors to restore inappropriate information, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Give an example of something not directly stated by the sources. Give an example of something not stated neutrally. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's even worse, in that people are now trying to single out Judaism to add extraneous information. Please see the notice brought below at #Support for Jay's comment, cited by Avi at AFD about the Islam article. Also, please remember that much of the material being discussed here is already on wikipedia in its proper place. It is incorrect, an NPOV violation, and an OR violation to bring it here--thereby creating a theory of criticism based on tangential elements of Biblical criticism, Jewish people, etc. Please remember what we are discussing--the appropriateness of elements in THIS article, not the appropriateness of discussions in proper places such as Shechita, Biblical criticism, Judaism and slavery, LGBT topics and Judaism, etc. -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of a criticism not stated directly by a source is from Fraade: The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity, pages 145–165. This source does cite religious texts, but provides no mention that it has been the object of criticism because of its alleged discrimination. According to Savant1984, it only provides "recognition that a double standard is asserted" and that "criticism[...] exists". Not exactly direct, is it. Chesdovi (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It states that criticisms exist, and what they are, right? This is what the article states? What's the problem here? Oh and Avi, the WP:AFD is now closed, and the article accepted by the community, so you need to come up with complaints about the material you are deleting, rather than the concept of the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Beleive it or not AzureFury, (the one who keeps on piping up the all material is reliably sourced) IT DOES NOT STATE AT ALL THAT CRITISM EXISTS!!!!!! That IS the problem. Have you checked any of the sources at all, or are you just causing trouble here? I abstainbed from the AFD as I beleive an article should and can exist on Criticsm of Judaism. What we need is what Avi has been campaiging in vain for. It is people like you who have not reseached any material and just are voting keep, keep, keep for reasons only known to your selves. I am waiting for a good explanation. Regards. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You a few minutes ago, " '...recognition that a double standard is asserted' and that 'criticism[...] exists' "

You now, "DOES NOT STATE AT ALL THAT CRITISM EXISTS"

Eh? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My dear AzureFury, please tell me if the following quote is sufficient in your mind to be used as a source showing that critisicm, not discussion, has been made about about the alledged double standard meted out to non-Jews in Jewish law:

“The following passage from the Mishnah is the locus classicus for discussion of the “double standard” applied to the non-Jew in Jewish law.” (Note: "double standard" in quotes)

Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the statement in the article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The article statement is:

"Judaism has been criticized because its religious laws contain several provisions that discriminate against non-Jews, such as the rule that there is no need to return lost property belonging to non-Jews, and the asymmetry in compensation rules following ox-goring incidents."

Please review Fraade and give your opinion whether it suffices to support this assertion. I did and came to the conclusion that it doesn't. If you had been following the discussion on this page, you should have noticed that this was discussed in the previous section when trying to sort out which sources can be used here. Your non-invovlment when it comes to the nitty-grity makes me wonder whether you are really intertesed in creating a page worthy of the name. Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a life outside of Wikipedia. I can't sit here refreshing the page every few minutes for 12 hours a day, and take the time to read and refute every silly little nonsensical argument you can pull out of the void. I'll have to review this when I've got the time. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I see three sources included in the ref. You only mentioned 1. What do the others say? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

See the my edit summarys in my consecutive edits starting [8]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Errrrr, in that edit summary you admit that the source points out a "double-standard" and calls it "discriminatory." You don't think these are criticisms? What would you like the source to say? "These are criticisms"? This is hollow wordplay. WP:OR says we only need to establish that material presented by the source is obvious to an "educated person without specialist knowledge." Calling something discriminatory is a criticism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Rushkoff

His book, Nothing Sacred, which is poorly summarized in the article on him, is a book length critique of numerous aspects of Judaism, from a Jewish intellectual attempting to move the religion into the twenty first century as he thinks it should be. i think this book is one of many, from notable people that are demonstrably not anti semitic, that can help establish this article as being appropriate in its current range. i am currently reading the book, and may attempt to summarize on the talk page his points, so that others can find consensus around what should and shouldnt be mentioned in the article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he criticize the Jewish Bible? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, please use the word Tanakh. I dont call the Bible the "Christian Tanakh" and I assume you do not call the Koran the "Islamic Bible"?, so give the millions of Jews alive and dead the courtesy of using the proper terminology.Camelbinky (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just being absurd. The term "Jewish Bible" has been used for a long time; our own Bible article starts The Bible refers to the sacred scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. If the common usage bothers you, you have a real big battle in front of you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he makes critiques of aspects of the Tanakh, or perhaps only the Torah, as he doesnt go through the works and cite pages (im on page 75). he may also be critiquing the Mishnah, the Talmud, and he critiques modern use or misuse of the Zohar. What he is doing is criticizing the modern interpretations of Judaism, Jewish teachings, the behaviors of Jews/Israelites, from the point of view of a passionate jewish defender of iconoclasm, abstract monotheism, and community involvement. is this the Torah? most would say criticism of the Torah would not include criticism of modern jewish behaviors. but, from some rabbinic commentary, the true "Torah" is the written words of god in the torah, the commentaries on the words of god as recorded in history (tanakh, talmud, mishnah, zohar, etc etc), and all the current written and oral discussions of what is jewish, by the jewish community, including this very posting, assuming i am jewish (am I? who is a jew?). heady content in this book, and heady content for this article, if its deemed appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that's useful objective evidence to end this "criticisms of the Jewish Bible are not criticisms of Judaism" nonsense. Let's see the deletionists try to BS their way out of this one. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he have a chapter on fundamentalism? I was supposed to work on the Jewish Fundamentalism article but these arguments get unsettling. Alatari (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

He does discuss the origins of the split between reform and orthodoxy, and gives his analysis of why orthodoxy, is, well, orthodox, and interestingly, why this is a recent phenom, and not, say, a solid, constant bedrock of judaism for the last 2 millenia. i would say this is a useful source, despite it obviously being a POV work, and not a neutral scholarly text.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Douglas Rushkoff considered a notable critic of religion? From his article, he looks to be more of a media theorist? -- Avi (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He's more just known for being a writer. He's an intellectual, Jewish, and wrote a book about religion that looks at the main religions of the world and critiques them. He still fits under your category. Silverseren^C 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

he is neither a religious scholar nor a noted critic of religion, beyond this book. He is a highly notable commentator. i gave him as an example of what is available as non-anti-semitic criticism of judaism. i would agree that if this is the ONLY commentary that critiques judaism in human history to receive any notable coverage, its not enough. Its not the only book of its nature. i think we can include Michael Lerner's Jewish Renewal, Karen Armstrong's A History of God, progressive orthodox rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz's judaism, human values, and the jewish state, among others mentioned in this works postscript, "B'shem Omro": "in the name of the person who said it".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Notable critics of religion (both pro and con) include people such as David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Søren Kierkegaard, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, John Locke, Gottfried Leibniz, Abdel-Halim Mahmoud, etc. I do not think Rushkoff alone has the gravitas to support a section. -- Avi (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Rushkoff has a Wikipedia article. He's notable. Discussion over. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He is notable as a media theorist, not a critic of religion. According to your faulty line of reasoning, we should quote Mother Theresa as an authority on statistical mechanics because she has a wikipedia article. That is utterly ridiculous. -- Avi (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He is notable as an "American media theorist, writer, columnist, lecturer, graphic novelist and documentarian. He is best known for his association with the early cyberpunk culture, and his advocacy of open source solutions to social problems." Early cyberpunk? graphic novelist? huh! Stellarkid (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The man is not a notable critic of religion, he is a notable graphic artist who has wrote about religion—something completely different. Reductio ad absurdum, shall we include Jon Bon Jovi because one of his songs references prayer? -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He's been established as a notable, reliable source, and has published a book on exactly the topic we're discussing. That is all that is needed to cite him as a source. The article does not need to limit itself to sources that devote their lives to criticisms, especially considering you'd probably argue that those aren't WP:RS! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of WP:RS, WP:V, etc., we understand that. Many of us here believe you are incorrect in your application of the policies, and that someone notable in field "A" is not ipso facto notable in field B just because he or she wrote in the topic. For example, would you allow Meir Kahane to be brought as a reliable source in Criticism of Islam; actually, that may not be fair, as Kahane was a student of Islamic politics. Even better, would you allow Mel Gibson as a reliable source on criticism of Christianity because he co-wrote The Passion of the Christ? I certainly hope not. In any event, once we get past the larger issues we are discussing below, we will handle the specific issue of Rushkoff and his ability to be a source here. If it requires an RfC or a discussion on [[WT:RS][/WT:V we will handle it then. -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson is not a scholar, nor reliable source. Analogy broken. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither is Rushkoff a scholar of religion; analogy broken . -- 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, he wrote a book on the bible. That would make him by definition a scholar of religion. Are you asserting the book is erroneous? Was it not researched? Was it not vetted by the academic community? Btw, I made no analogy, so your childish attempt at symmetric taunting was an epic failure. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The very act of writing a book on the Bible does not make him a notable scholar of religion. Hutton Gibson also wrote on religion; I doubt anyone would say that makes him a notable author. Ray Bradbury wrote about God. While he certainly is a notable author of science fiction, I would be amazed if anyone considered him a notable scholar of the divine. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

His notability is already established. His reliability is already established. Just like the New York Times, or Wall Street Journal, etc. A source doesn't have to devote its entire existence to one topic to be considered reliable. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is he needed as a source? I'm not familiar with his work, so I can't speak to his reliability, but does he treat a topic or provide an insight that is not available from other sources? Or do scholarly sources provide essentially the same criticisms? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I, also, was not previously familiar with him, so I looked at his bio page. I note that Mercury said at the top of this thread that that page may not adequately describe Nothing Sacred, so I need to qualify what I say here in that I may be misled by the description there. I think it is useful to discuss this, since we are discussing more broadly what kind of source (secondary? scholarly?) we should use to establish notability for inclusion. I'm going to broadly agree in this instance with what Avi says about Rushkoff not really being noted for religious criticism, but instead being noted for other things. Here's why. Rushkoff is someone primarily noted for other expertise who has also written about the topic of this page; it's useful to compare and contrast him with Richard Dawkins, for example, who was primarily an expert in evolutionary biology but who has also become noted as a critic of religion. The contrast between those two bio pages is quite clear. Criticism of religion is a very major theme for Dawkins, not so (subject to the caveat about the page) for Rushkoff. Does that make Rushkoff invalid as a source? No, not entirely. But it does mean that relying on him heavily to establish notability would fail WP:UNDUE. As Nuujinn asked just above, can we not find alternative scholarly sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And to be clear here, i was using mr rushkoff as an example of the existence of the subject of this article (and I found the book just days before i came upon this articles afd, coincidentally). I would not suggest he have a significant section, but he may be used as a reliable source if appropriate. He could be amongst a list of critics of judaism as well, if that was agreed upon. i agree his main notability is not in this field, but he is established as a respected commentator, and in the history of writers like himself, he is a broad thinker who is basically "allowed" to comment on what he likes, and is given a modicum of respect for his comments. There is definitely room for such writers to be sourced in WP articles. after all, while we are for the most part not notable ourselves, many of us writing here are also not specialists in the articles we contribute to, but we do add to the articles significantly. that is the whole point of WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DELETE

This article is no more relevant that an article of all praises for Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent AfD and consensus in this article disagree with that. This article, which we are in the process of revising, can be seen as a content fork to the main Judaism article. It was actually discussed before here and even in the AfD that, if well sourced, a praises article for Judaism would also be valid. Silverseren^C 05:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A praises article would be seen as in violation of NPOV, so this should be too.--Iankap99 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Praises or criticism, by itself, is not POV. If it is written in the manner of what other people stated and reported, then it is an NPOV viewpoint reporting what other people said. This is how articles are supposed to be written. In a realistic sense, if everyone edited correctly, there would be no such thing as an article that violated NPOV, though there would be many articles that would violate other policies. Besides the fact that POV problems are not a reason for deletion, but correction. Silverseren^C 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Without an article for praises, this violates NPOV. How is it any more appropriate?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As has been continually pointed out by opponents, NPOV doesn't extend across articles. Having this article doesn't necessitate the creation or relation to another. If you want, you can say the main religion articles are praise as it is. They are, in a sense. Silverseren^C 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

I just undid User:Ism schisms recent reversion to the article, which had removed the reflist, the categories, the infoboxes and probably a whole lot else. That is not a comment on the content of either version, but content issues do not require cutting the article in half (mid sentance) and throwing out the bottom half. Weakopedia (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have posted here, but I reverted User:Ism schisms twice last night, leaving note on their talk page asking them to discuss desired changes here. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you making those reversions. That's why the page was recently protected, and maybe it will need to be, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry My internet connection was not working well, and I ended up deleting material that I did not intent to, and then could not respond and/or edit. I apologize. Please understand that it was not my intention to delete the material. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd suggest next time please respond to the comments posted on your talk page before repeating the deletions. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding deletion of section on "Historical accuracy of Hebrew Bible"

Should Criticism of Judaism article contain a section summarizing criticisms of the historical accuracy of the Hebrew Bible? --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - This article had a section summarizing the criticisms of the Hebrew Bible, specifically, that many foundational elements of Judaism (Moses, flight from Egypt, etc) may not be historically accurate. The section was deleted here: [9] (that link shows the content of the deleted section). An attempt at consensus was made on the Talk page here [10] but the deleting editor did not respond. Other "Criticism of some religion" articles have similar sections, including:

• Criticism of Islam#Truthfulness of Islam and Islamic scriptures
• Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement#Criticisim of sacred texts
• Criticism of Christianity#Scripture

This article should follow the same pattern as the others, since criticism of foundational religious texts are clearly relevant to criticism of the religion as a whole. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• No Errors in other articles do not allow errors in this article. The criticisms about the accuracy of the texts are not crticisms of the religion. Perhaps a general criticism of ALL religions would include that they are partially based on faith and not totally on fact, including the historicity of their texts. However attacking the historicity of Judaism's texts is not attacking the religion, it is attacking adherents of the religion for having faith support a belief that is not historically provable. Which is not a criticism of Judaism, per se, and should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #2, 3, 13 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• No - Because all sources in relation to this subject will be criticisms on the Bible which is dealt with under Biblical criticism. They were not made in reference to Judaism, but against the plain and simple rendering of the biblical text, not taking into account the various religious interpretations. Chesdovi (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #13 and 18 below. --Noleander (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - Criticism of a religion's texts is a criticism of the religion. Further, redundancy is not an argument against referencing, which is what this relatively short section does. In response to "They were not made in reference to Judaism," these are titles of some of the sources, "20th Century Jewish Religious Thought,", "Historicity of Moses", "Warfare and the Hebrew Bible", "The Election of Israel: Outline of a Philosphical analysis". AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• No -- it's not specific toward Judaism, but rather a common complaint about all religious texts, which generally differ only in exactly when they were invented. By the way, stop edit warring, please; it's bad faith to edit war over sections under discussion, and the best thing to do is keep them out until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear contradition of the sources which are specifically referring to Jewish religious texts. See WP:OR. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have understood WP:OR to mean exactly the opposite of the intent of the policy. It is, in fact, WP:OR to assume that a criticism of a religious text used by Judaism (and other faiths) is the same as a criticism of the religion itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #11 and 13 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• No. Judaism is not the Hebrew Bible, and criticism of one isn't necessarily criticism of the other. Criticism of the Hebrew Bible belongs in the Hebrew Bible article, not here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The criticisms that were documented in the deleted content were not arbitrary criticisms of the book, they were criticisms that fundamental claims about the origins of the religion's laws and tenets were false. So I agree with you that a criticism of the Bible that "the 7 days of creation story is repeated twice in contradictory ways" does not belong in this article; but criticisms like "Moses did not write the Torah" or "God did not talk personally to the Jews" or "the laws enumerated in the bible did not have divine origin but instead were fabrications of mortals" do belong in this article. --Noleander (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Judaism itself, in all its varieties, rarely takes the Bible completely literally or at face value, so a criticism of a specific statement or story in the Bible may be completely irrelevant to Judaism's beliefs. Judaism is not a specific text, and criticisms of religious texts used by Judaism are criticisms of those texts alone, not of Judaism itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See FAQ #3 and 13 below. --Noleander (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. At the risk of leaping into another hornet's nest discussion, it does seem to me to be well within the range of what belongs in this article. The accuracy of the Bible as history is maintained as an element of the doctrine of the revelation of the Torah by a at least a large segment of the Orthodox community; as far as I know, that assertion (i.e., that at least a large section of the Orthodox community mantains this)is uncontroversial. The fact that by no means everyone within the Jewish Tradition can be said to agree with them (either about Biblical texts' historicity or the importance of their historicity) seems to me to be beside the point. It's an utterly notable view in Judaism. Savant1984 (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How would the questioning of the historical accuracy of the Hebrew bible constitute criticism of Judaism? As I see it, the questioning of the accuracy of something and the criticizing of that thing, are not necessarily related acts. In this case they are unrelated acts. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I think it goes something like this: 1) Judaism includes the assertion that the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety. 2) The Bible is not historically accurate in its entirety. 3)Judaism includes false assertions (a legitimate criticism). The fact that #1 is hardly undisputed in Judaism doesn't, however, mean that the view is so non-notable, either because only a trivial number of people hold it or those who hold it think that it is trivial -- I don't think either is true. Savant1984 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm...my leaning would be no, this is about the old Testament, right? Which is also an integral part of christian teachings, many of whom take the old testament literally, hence the scope would be 'criticism of segments of Judaeochristian religions which believe in these books literally' - in other words its presence here is somewhat misleading Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is to only include criticisms that are specific to Judaism, that is, that call into question the foundations of the religion itself. That would include criticisms such as (these are from various critics): "The laws of the Torah did not come from God", "God did not talk to Moses", "The Exodus did not happen", "God did not single out Jews to be the chosen people", etc. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. According to the perfect article guidelines, an article should cover every aspect of a topic. It's better to include information than exclude it. Leadwind (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• No - The historical accuracy, or lack of same, of the Hebrew Bible is something which could and should fairly be mentioned in the Hebrew Bible article, and that article on the Hebrew Bible should reasonably be linked to this one. However, the historical accuracy of the Bible has very little if any real relevance to the religion itself. And, as has been said elsewhere, virtually every religion over a few hundred years old, and even a lot of those not that old, face regular and serious questions about the accuracy of their statements, so I think it is so common that it is not specifically notable for this faith and not so important to the matter of the faith itself that it needs to be mentioned here. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• No, per John Carter, also, a religion is more than a single document, no matter how much influence that document has on the religion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I would tend to agree with AzureFury that criticism of the religion's texts really is a criticism of the religion. But if we are talking here about the historical accuracy, as opposed to the teachings and practices, it gets to be borderline. In cases where historical inaccuracies lead directly to beliefs of the religion, and those beliefs are criticized by secondary sources that explicitly tie the criticism to the historical inaccuracy, then I would include those here. But in cases where the criticism is that the accounts are historically inaccurate, then I would instead link to them as John Carter described. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The content under discussion is here [11]. The intention of that section was not "here is a litany of all the things wrong with the Tanakh" but rather: "Essential elements of Judaism are rooted on some ancient stories (namely: God forming special covenants with the Jews, God talking to the Jews, God talking to Moses, slavery and Exodus in Egypt, etc) and many scholars consider those stories to be false, and hence the underlying premise of the religion is called into question". Perhaps the title of the section could be improved. Alternatively, the section could be combined with the section "Criticism of Chosen People concept" (which discusses similar themes, but not emphasizing the Tanakh) ... a version of the "Chosen People" section is available here [12] ... but it is hard to imagine what the title would be of such a combined section. --Noleander (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)