Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:23, 17 February 2010

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

However, the concluding admin also stated:

There is a clear consensus to keep this article, although a difference of opinion on whether to merge the content of another article to it or to merge it with something else. This is an editorial decision though that can and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and does not influence the AFD's outcome. As such, closing this AFD as "keep" does not mean consensus is against merging anything anywhere.

To read the discussion so far about merging, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism, further comments should be made below.

Merging

I'd like to point out that if no-one makes further comments about the merge, I'll do it myself, and without further guidance I won't be doing anything except basically almost entirely converting it to a redirect. Newman Luke (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not merge Arayot into here? This is the better title on the English Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that everyone else's opinion too? Newman Luke (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus about a merge, let alone about which direction it should go. I personally would be bold, and see what people would do. Even if the direction were to be reverted later, the merge would stay, one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the merge would be not much more than a redirect, if the direction were to be into Arayot. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. The arayot are not specified there so much. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

what it seems to me is basically, delete this article, and then move Arayot here. Newman Luke (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I do believe there should be an English title, either way. The term "Arayot" is not one a lot of observant Jewish people know, let alone gentile English speakers. I am an Orthodox Jew with a Jewish education, yet I never heard the term. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It must be quite unusual that an Orthodox Jew does not know of one of the only three things (idolary, murder, and gillui arayot) that Orthodox Judaism says a Jew must never do, even to the point of dying rather than transgressing the prohibition on them. I find that a very odd state of affairs, given how much something that important would most likely be drummed into them, repeatedly, through their parents and Jewish schooling. I wonder what the reason for that is? Newman Luke (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know these concepts, and in fact, I have contributed to the articles about them. It is just the Hebrew terminology I am less familiar with. The same is true for much of my family and friends, mostly Modern Orthodox Jews. We all know it in English but not Hebrew. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles. The result is definitely more complete than either of the two articles were before, but still needs to be completed in some sections. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But now the article is completely incorrect. All forbidden reltionships are treated as Arayot. Can you fix this?Mzk1 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesbianism

Who is this Rabbi Eisenberg and how does he override a clear statement of the Shulchan Aruch? (Yes, I know the source rules. But there is a lot of nonsense out there.) Also see the main article, which also contradicts this.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I solved the issue with my edit. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it doesn't really clarify, unless you mean the prohibition is Rabbinical. (P.S. Nice to meet you.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. Yes, this prohibition is rabbinical. Feel free to rephrase it if that wasn't clear enough. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to know more about this than I do. Where is this from? (P.S. I know I just made a number of unsourced edits. I will fix this very soon; it's not like sources for this are hard to find.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it in the Rambam, Issurei Bi'ah 21:8. Same in the Shulchan Oruch (who quotes that Rambam) in Even Ho'ezer 20:2. There it looks as a biblical prohibition, on first glance, but nowhere have I seen anything explicit, and I can see arguments to say it is rabbinical as well. I haven't seen the source in the article. In conclusion, I take back my previous words, that the prohibition is rabbinical, because I am not sure any more. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K., rewrote it. What do you think? Also, if I rewrite the page (someday), do you think the lists should be removed? They can always open a Bible if they want the full listing. The Arayot should defifinitely be separated out in their own section.Mzk1 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you rewrote it well. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The list is in a separate section as it is. the argument that they can always open a bible, is not a good argument for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I will not undo your revert. The reason I wrote it was that traditional Judaism does not require reasons. I thought this was a vanilla way of saying this, particularly without a source on my part. Otherwise, someone will say - the reason does not apply, therefore -. Do you have better phrasing?

Regarding the list, perhaps the list of Arayot and Sheniyot should be put into a sub-srticle; that would hopefully not have the objections of the orgiginal separation. Without checking carefully, I think the list of Sheniyot here is not inclusive, and the full list is I think too long to put here. I would also like to rewrite some of the relations in Arayot in simpler English, without forcing Halacha's iterpretation on the verse - which also should be mentioned. Good Shabbos.Mzk1 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As a list it has no chance of standing on its own. Better keep it as part of this article. Which is after all about the same subject. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Just one last thing, as I guess I don't understand the concept. (This is long-term anyway.) There are, I think, over 20 Shniyot. Wouldn't this make the article rather long? I see all kind of lists of actors in some series and things like that? Why wouldn't this be the same?Mzk1 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a list is not what makes an article long. The definition of long is somewhere over 35kb, which means we measure characters, not length on the paper. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Step-sister

In correcting the list taken from Leviticus, I tried to stick to the literal meaning, leaving interpretation for afterwards. I note that the original had a step-sister. Step-sisters are permitted in Jewish law. I suppose someone interprets it this way because a sister is already mentioned; the Rabbis have their own interpretation. (I may have slightly gone against it in the list, but the end result is the same.) Looking at the main article, which is quite secular, I only see a Karatite view prohibiting a step-sister. Does anyone know where this is from? Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deaf-mute

(Mostly to DeBresser) Regarding the last revert, I felt it important because people with the handicap might take offense; there are in fact several opinions as to what constitutes a cheresh (and possibly even a shoteh) today. The original was worse, "completely forbidden" - not only untrue but contradicted by its own source. (I can't believe I'm quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia. At least it wasn't the Jewish Virtual Library - you might as well quote someone's blog. There is a definite problem with the over-dependance on Internet sources.)

I would think "it should be noted", is not different from other things I have seen in Misplaced Pages, and certainly not in real encyclopedias. Do you have a better phrase, assuming I get a good source? I have some handicap in the area as I live in Haifa, but I have at least one idea. I thought about it and it was the best I could think of.

Regarding Sheniyot, I would not put a list, as I found the main article, and they claim there are various opinions; there may be truth to this, in spite of their angle. (I did make a very slight correction there.)

Do you think that I should check with you (no one else seems interested) before posting? I have no problem with your reverts, but I'm not sure you like what I'm trying to do.Mzk1 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be bothered by what I or any other editor might or might not like. You are obviously working to improve this article along the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, and that is all that matters to me. I did notice that apart from the two of us there aren't many other editors actively involved in what is going on on this page. If you want to have broader input, perhaps post a short notification on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism.

Instead of "It should be noted that such and such" it is more encyclopedical to say "such and such" straightforward.

After your explanation I would have no problems with it if you would return a sentence like the one I removed. Although I don't think it is necessary, or even advisable, at least as long as there is no reference to a source detailing the opinions. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you. That was nice of you to say.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting

A couple of people have taken upon themselves to unilaterally (bilaterally) rewute the entire article to suit themselves, without any discussion at all.

Let's take an example:

"The more popular forms of modern Judaism - Reform, Progressive (known in the USA as Reconstructionist), and Liberal". All right, any statistics here? How are you counting? Are you arbitrarily putting different groups together? Is "Orthodox" only observant? (What if we applied that rule to Catholics?) We have about five, six million Jews here in Israel, almost all de facto Orthodox, whether or not they believe or observe.

If they don't believe or observe then as far as statistics are concerned they aren't. Sticking a sign on a guy saying "woman" doesn't make them one. If they don't support the Orthodox view, then regardless of the label, they still don't support the Orthodox view. Ethnic backgrounds are irrelevant; this material is about what is believed. The National Jewish Population Survey, for example, had Orthodox Judaism down at less than 16%, that's pretty definitely a minority by most people's standards. For comparison, Reform was at 38%. And for the record, it doesn't suit me at all, but it is important to flag that the material following the statement is NOT the view of most Jews - just the view of a specific minority. Otherwise it has undue weight, and that would be a bad thing. Newman Luke (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K, let's take it one-by-one.

In my example, I gave Catholics. A relative of mine is Catholic, divorced, and remarried. According to his religion, he is commiting adultery. Yet he is still Catholic. A chart published in the New York Times many years ago showed that Catholics had more abortions than Jews or Protestants. According to Catholicism (and Maimonidies) this is murder. But they are still Catholics.

The fact is that in spite of support from the courts beyond their numbers, the other denominations have never got far here. Even people who are secular, when they observe, they observe Orthodox. Leaving out the secular, we have Orthodox and Traditional, making up (there are lots of polls) perhaps 40 - 55% of the Jewish population of 5 - 6 million. That's more than 38% of the American population.

Worldwide, no-one has a majority. Who has a plurality? I don't know, and neither do you. Lumping together various groups seems POV.

Oh, one other thing. You give the Karaites top billing, even though there are relatively few left, then you put down the traditional viewpoint, even though it predominated for at least a thousand years. Which is it? Mzk1 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid the word "popular". And I agree that Karaism receives too much attention on Judaism articles. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's try another (leaving out that "in Later Judaism" is POV):

"In Orthodox Judaism, a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority, some of the relationships forbade by the bible are regarded as such serious wickedness that one should be willing to die, rather than commit them;"

This is a statement in the Talmud, not some late opinion. I suppose you will say it was clarified later. So, then, Maimonidies, for example, practiced "Orthodox Judaismm a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority", while Reconstructionist Judaism is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? All of these definitions are POV.

If its in the Talmud, where's the cite for it? Where's the cite for the bit of the Talmud that says that - not something vaguely similar or more general - but specifically that? I'm fine with the claim that its in the Talmud, but that needs to be cited for before the article can claim it is.

But if its only clarified later then its not clarified in the Talmud, is it? So you can't legitimately claim that it is. You can only say that so-and-so interpreted/instructed-that/declared the Talmud to mean - you have to say who it was, you can't attribute it directly to the Talmud. Newman Luke (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 74, to start. There are others. It wasn't hard to find; open Maimonidies, check the commentaries. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the law was misrepresented as some late, minority opinion within Rabbinic Judaism, which is false. By clarified I meant not that it wasn't clear, but that one can find many opinions in the Talmud.

Which is where I get to the definitions, which seem POV. Are you claiming that Refrom is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? Are you saying the Maimonidies was Orthodox? (Fine with me, but I want that clarified.) Reform does not accept the Torah as absolute, much less the Talmud.

You could have said, "Traditional Judaism says that the prohibitions in Leviticus are so severe that one must die rather than violate them. Today, most Jews do not follow Traditional Judaism." I don't know that I would have objected to that, and it would have made the same point. (However, you would then have to qualify lots of other things. Best to put the disclaimer in one place.)Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Everybody knows (or should know, and that is why they are linked) what the various forms of Judaism are. Apart from that, Orthodox Judaism is the source from which all other modern forms of Judaism (excluding Karaism) developed/branched off. A schism that is still in the process of enlarging. As such, Orthodox Judaism has been more longlived, more influential, and more distinct, than those modern movements. It is therefore a good idea to clarify its points of view first and foremost. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Do I want the traditional view to be the only one stated? No, but I want it to be clear so someone interested can find it, and I want some balance. Mzk1 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Just one user.Mzk1 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I recommend this page stay protected until a decent discussion takes place. Personally, I have spent hours researching small changes only to see one or two people rewrite it to suit their own personal prejudices.

Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes. Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.

Can someone tell me where things go from here? Mzk1 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the goal of the protection is to be sure that discussion occurs. Please make a proposal for how you think the page should be changed. If you think your small changes were valid, but were overridden, you could mention a couple of them here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, Mzk1, the protection is for a short while. Also fortunately, if the edit warring continues after the block is lifted, the warring editors will probably be blocked for awhile. I think everybody hopes that the editors involved with this article will come back to the discussion page and talk about the changes they want to make, so that they all can come to a consensus. I've seen this happen before as long as all editors keep in mind that the main thrust is the improvement of this article, and WP!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. My point is that he re-wrote the entire article without discussing it. Debresser reverted, and then, I believe, policy is that we now discuss it and then make changes. But the questions is, where do we start from? Do we start from the original article, or do we start from the NL's rewrite and have to defend every departure from it? I know that the article was flawed, I was working to slowly improve it, and NL is certainly welcome to callaborate, but he is trying to take personal posession of it. There is also the issue of TONE. Mzk1 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. If NL comes back, as I expect, and again rewrites the article before discussing it, then what? Can I revert? Will I get blocked if I do? Mzk1 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is the age-old struggle between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, plus the requirement for WP:CONSENSUS to consider here. The idea is to preserve all good content while ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and that any new content added is also reliably sourced. If NL comes back after protection is lifted and resumes editing without discussion and without reliably sourcing his edits, then it is incumbent upon other involved editors to take action. Again, I'm hoping it does not come to this, but rather, I'd like to see NL bring his ideas to the discussion page so they can be subject to consensus among yourself and other involved editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss sourcing, its in the edit history. I deliberately made clear in the edit history what the sources were, so that you could answer your own questions about that instead of asking me them. They are, mentioned here for your ease (not that its difficult to look in the reference section of the article, or down the edit summary in the history), almost entirely mainstream encyclopedias, used in, among other areas, university theology, and mainly public domain too. All of them recognised as reliable sources, and all of the public domain ones the basis for many many pre-existing wikipedia articles.

"My point is that he re-wrote the entire article without discussing it."

Here's a suitable quote from Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles:

So according to the official policy, anyone claiming that consensus is needed before huge changes is committing "ownership behaviour", which the policy condemns.

Making lots of edits is NOT taking personal possession of an article. Its just making lots of edits. Trying to take personal possession is when you claim that people need to get approval from you before they make lots of edits.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for reversion. Blanket reverting is unacceptable. It says that in the WP:REVERT policy. Reverting anything other than simple vandalism is inappropriate.

Now you state Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes., so if you don't want people to fix it up or add that material, how exactly do you think its going to get there?.

You also state Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.. Now if you think about it, that applies more to the reverters than I - I haven't refused to discuss anything, in fact I've repeatedly asked debresser to point to specific content he feels is factually inaccurate, or specific edits he thinks violate policy or are otherwise inappropriate. It is Debresser who has refused to discuss these things and reverted regardless. Newman Luke (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, Newman Luke, I would like to assume good faith on your part, but you don't make it easy. Perhaps you can focus me in on these places where you've tried to get Debresser to discuss and he's refused? I can find nothing like that on this Talk page where it should be found.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman Luke - I've highlighted the multiple requests there in bold, so they are easy to find. I'm glad you can see there's no comment by Debresser on the talk page - the first place he should have raised any issue on content. I find it strange you don't complain to him about not using this page to discuss his issues before, or even after, blanket reverting. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How material should get into an article is by "collaboration". It says so in that policy you cited above. The example you give is, I believe, misunderstood by you, by the way. If one editor were to say to you, "You must get a consensus!" then YES, you could argue "ownership". However when more than one editor is saying that you need consensus before making sweeping changes, this constitutes a desire for a collaborative effort. So you cannot raise the issue of ownership here because it does not apply!

WP:OWN applies to a gang of multiple editors too - see Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles#multiple editors. The examples there apply to multiple editors, not just one. Here is what it says constitute ownership behaviour:

so according to the official policy, you're committing ownership behaviour, which is forbade. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, one editor making lots of edits without collaboration and consensus is most assuredly that editor trying to take control and ownership of the article. When other editors who are also involved in the improvement of this article say to you, get a consensus first, or they outright revert you, this means that you are flagrantly disregarding their opinions. That's acting like an "owner", isn't it?

On the other editors part, it is. Not on mine. Here's another example of what WP:OWN says constitutes ownership behaviour:

again, you're committing what WP:OWN says is ownership behaviour. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus: There are several involved editors who want to have a say in any changes made to this article. It is a controversial subject, and so cooperative collaboration among involved editors becomes paramount to the improvement of such an article. Please discuss the changes you want to make here on this talk page before you make them.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind people having a say, the only one who has though is Mzk1. Absolutely the only person who's asked anything about the actual specific edits is Mzk1. And I've responded to that. Now if all you are going to do is make general complaints about the editor, then you really shouldn't be here. Here's another quote from WP:OWN:

I suggest you do so. Its official policy. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not simply edit. You reverted. You erased things on which there was discussion and consensus on this page without discussing further. (Ironically, the consensus was not my opinion.) For example, the list of Arayot, which I questioned at first, and then carefully edited to be NPOV, not traditional (mother-in-law) or otherwise (step-sister). You just threw it out (=reverted, look it up), without discussion. I also wanted to make sweeping changes, but did not because I wanted consensus and good sources.Mzk1 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to start a discussion

(To NL) If possible, I would like to write the article together. We have different sources and types of knowledge, and perhaps we can collaborate. I do not mean just us, but no-one else has seemed interested.

I should point out that the article is "in Judaism", not "in the Bible", or in "among the ancient Hebrews". Therefore, if you wish to include something, it should be something that, in context, is Judaism. Furthermore, Judaism is what is (or was), not what one thinks it should be.

One last thing. The Bible should not be used as a source unless the interpretation is clear and non-controversial, or unless one is stating that the literal meaning is given. Otherwise we have OR, as the Bible is a primary source. I suppose that would apply to the Talmud also, but I am not sure.

Following are my reasons for giving a prominent place to the traditional viewpoint:

1. It is the law of the land for the five to six million Jews of Israel, if they wish to get married here, excepting the small number of Karaites and Samaritans. Whether everyone likes it or not, this is a fact, and most people eventually do get married here. I suspect this is also true in the rest of the Middle East (Lebanon, for example) where there is no civil marriage.

2. It predominated in Jewish life for over a thousand years, to the point where the start is controversial. (I think it is telling that Josephus states that almost everyone followed the Pharisees, but we needn't go back that far.)

3. This specific topic is pretty clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement on the major issues. This is as opposed to opinions on earlier times, where all is basically speculation (the exception being the Karaites and perhaps the Samaritans).

4. Other viewpoints with a large following often start from the traditional viewpoint. In spite of attacks on the EJ and JE (encyclopedias) as being anti-traditional, the traditional view is given a prominent place there.

5. In spite of erosion, the traditional view is still one of the largest among practicing Jews, and an even larger practice (when they practice) according to it (see above). It is also the only one that is world-wide.

In order to discuss (assuming you wish to do that), it would help if I understood what you are talking about.

Who (what groups at what times) do you include within Orthodox Judaism? Within Rabbinic Judaism? Within Talmudic Judaism?

Thank you.Mzk1 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One note on the opening paragraph. I do not see how the Karaite interpretation is prominent enough to put in the opening paragraph. Karaism is very small currently; furthermore, at various points and places in history, the Karaites did not call themselves Jews. I am not saying to leave it out of the article.Mzk1 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if consensus is impossible, I suppose separate pages on traditional and other viewpoints are possible. I suspect that the laws of the State of Israel are at least as important as the sonic screwdriver.Mzk1 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics