→Philosophical criticism is missing: r to IP: yes, Kant is missing |
→Philosophical criticism is missing: more philosophers |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
I'm not really sure how to approach writing this -- perhaps a new section on philosophical criticism? [[Special:Contributions/137.254.4.8|137.254.4.8]] ([[User talk:137.254.4.8|talk]]) 07:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
I'm not really sure how to approach writing this -- perhaps a new section on philosophical criticism? [[Special:Contributions/137.254.4.8|137.254.4.8]] ([[User talk:137.254.4.8|talk]]) 07:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:IP: Yes, you are correct, the article is missing some of the more important philosophers. It ''does'' include some Spinoza material, but perhaps that could be improved. Other editors have suggested adding material on Kant ... I think it was he (or another philosopher in his era) who criticized Judaism for being a "religion without morals", by which he meant (Im paraphrasing here) that Judaism focused too heavily on laws/rules/politics and not so much on morality (his judgement, not mine). But I have not researched Kant at all, and I may be totally wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :-) If you want to add a new "Philosophy" section based on Kant or Nietzsche, go ahead. Make sure all the material you add is supported with high-quality sources (see [[WP:RS]]), and identify all your sources in footnotes. Don't be too timid: any mistakes you make can always be rectified. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
:IP: Yes, you are correct, the article is missing some of the more important philosophers. It ''does'' include some Spinoza material, but perhaps that could be improved. Other editors have suggested adding material on Kant ... I think it was he (or another philosopher in his era) who criticized Judaism for being a "religion without morals", by which he meant (Im paraphrasing here) that Judaism focused too heavily on laws/rules/politics and not so much on morality (his judgement, not mine). But I have not researched Kant at all, and I may be totally wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :-) If you want to add a new "Philosophy" section based on Kant or Nietzsche, go ahead. Make sure all the material you add is supported with high-quality sources (see [[WP:RS]]), and identify all your sources in footnotes. Don't be too timid: any mistakes you make can always be rectified. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::One of these days I'm going to have time too resume work on this article :-) Here are some more "philosophical" critics to consider at that time: |
|||
::*Karl Marx |
|||
::*Immanuel Kant |
|||
::*G.W.F Hegel |
|||
::*D.F.Strauus |
|||
::*Ludwig Feuerbach |
|||
::*Bruno Bauer |
|||
:::(above list from ''Antisemitism: Myth and Hate'' by Perry). --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:21, 10 March 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Homosexuality
The article says, "some branches, such as Orthodox Judaism, prohibit homosexual activity, although it does not exclude homosexual individuals." How can they prohibit homosexuality but not homosexuals? Is this really what the sources say? Is the entire ending of that particular sentence referring to orthodox Judaism, or is the qualifying bit referring to some other branch? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Homosexuals are allowed to be members of Orthodox Judaism, but they cannot engage in homosexual acts. By the way, that is the same policy as the Mormon church. But you are right: that sentence should probably be re-worded to be clearer. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Paul's criticism of Judaism
I put together a rough draft of a section treating Paul's criticism of Judaism. I reckon just sticking in a new section would cause a bruhaha, so I'm posting the link so folks can take a look and see if it warrants inclusion. Please note that all of the sources are academic works which use the phrase "criticism of Judaism", for whatever that may be worth. All feedback is welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The proposed content looks like it is the result of some good research. A couple of comments: (1) Probably should add a sentence (or perhaps merely a footnote) identifying which texts Paul's original comments/statements are located in (so readers could track them down); (2) Need to think about which article is best for this content: Anti-Judaism or Criticism of Judaism (both are WP:Summary Style articles) ... the guideline has been that criticisms of the nature "Judaism is wrong because it does not accept Jesus/Christianity" go into Anti-Judaism article; since some of Paul's criticism is of that nature, that content should go in that other article (but other content that criticizes the precepts/doctrines of Judaism is appropriate for this article); (3) Since this is WP:Summary Style, consider some "see also" links such as Supersessionism, Rejection of Jesus#Jewish rejection, and Paul of Tarsus and Judaism. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- A thought that occurs to me is that it goes somewhat against the current organization of the page to group criticisms by who the source was. Would it be possible instead to put these criticisms into existing sections of the page, instead of into a section of their own? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point - a similar issue exists with the several criticisms in the Criticism of Judaism#Criticism of traditional Judaism by reform movement, because several of those criticisms are also made by critics outside the reform movement. The Criticism of Buddhism article has the same issue, because it is more-or-less organized by the source of the criticism (Marxists, Christians,etc), rather than the nature of the criticism (corruption, inequality, etc). In general, the articles seem better when they are organized by the nature of the criticism, not the source, primarily because most criticisms come from multiple sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could go in as a subsection to Doctrines and precepts, perhaps as Self-righteousness? Also, I've made some changes to take into account Neolander's comments regarding point 2, my goal is to see if it can find this article, so I've tried strip out the "Judaism is wrong because it does not accept Jesus/Christianity" issues. Please take a look and provide further guidance, and thanks. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn — you make the point (at the beginning of this section) that, "all of the sources are academic works which use the phrase 'criticism of Judaism'". To be clear, the issue has not been the sourcing of the subtopics within this article. The issue has been the absence of a source establishing the overarching topic, "criticism of Judaism," of this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point to a specific policy? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:RS says, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." What reliable source establishes "criticism of Judaism" as a topic? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I believe the topic Paul's criticism of Judaism has reliable sources. If you're opposed to the article in it's entirety, bring it up at WP:AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:RS says, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." What reliable source establishes "criticism of Judaism" as a topic? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you point to a specific policy? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn — you make the point (at the beginning of this section) that, "all of the sources are academic works which use the phrase 'criticism of Judaism'". To be clear, the issue has not been the sourcing of the subtopics within this article. The issue has been the absence of a source establishing the overarching topic, "criticism of Judaism," of this article. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could go in as a subsection to Doctrines and precepts, perhaps as Self-righteousness? Also, I've made some changes to take into account Neolander's comments regarding point 2, my goal is to see if it can find this article, so I've tried strip out the "Judaism is wrong because it does not accept Jesus/Christianity" issues. Please take a look and provide further guidance, and thanks. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's a good point - a similar issue exists with the several criticisms in the Criticism of Judaism#Criticism of traditional Judaism by reform movement, because several of those criticisms are also made by critics outside the reform movement. The Criticism of Buddhism article has the same issue, because it is more-or-less organized by the source of the criticism (Marxists, Christians,etc), rather than the nature of the criticism (corruption, inequality, etc). In general, the articles seem better when they are organized by the nature of the criticism, not the source, primarily because most criticisms come from multiple sources. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Nuujinn, let me start by saying it's well written. My initial concerns here would be that
- as with most or all of the material currently in the article, it actually belongs elsewhere.
- only one of the sources is a University press. On the other hand two sources are published by Fortress Press, the publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and one by the Paulist Press (the Paulist Fathers). The concern here is that the sources might be more polemical than scholarly in nature.
--Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in regard to your first point, I do understand your position. But if we have an article titled "Criticism of Judaism", I think it's a reasonable argument that this should be here, since the sources reflect the title. Regarding your second point, what I said was they were academic sources, and I think theological research falls into that category. You are right, of course, that theological works might be considered polemic (using common usage, rather than the narrow definition), but I don't think these particular references are. Do you see any problems with a particular reference? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- One way to look at it is: There are two articles that are WP:Summary Style articles that summarize the criticisms of Judaism: Anti-Judaism and Criticism of Judaism. The former is for criticisms that relate to faith-based arguments (e.g. J. doesnt follow Islam or Christianity); the latter article is for all other criticisms. Based on the latest draft of the proposed content, it looks like the proposed content probably belongs in Anti-Judaism, maybe in section Anti-Judaism#Early Christianity and the Judaizers. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point as well. A question, then, does anyone have an opinion about whether this should be an article on it's own? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd recommend starting with that, then adding material from Kant and Hegel. Then you could move on to Strauss, Feuerbach, and Bauer. You could even throw in some Marx. There's be plenty of scholarly material, on all sides of the discussion. Then, when finished, replace the contents of this article with whatever you've written. I'm not joking, you could easily turn that material into a Featured Article, as opposed to this mess, which (because of its inherent policy violating nature) can never be better than "C" class, and will therefore, no doubt, be put up for AfD on a regular basis. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- But this isn't a "Summary Style article", Noleander, this is an "Original Research article", into which is shoved any random negative statement editors can google up about about Jews or anything relating to them. The irony here is that Nuujinn's material is better written than any section currently in the article, and arguably more relevant than any of them too. If any of the current material belongs it's this, not what's currently in the article. If one wanted to actually start improving the article then one would jettison all the rest of it for this. But of course, that "if" is based on the premise that the intent here is to improve the article and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, I see the chances of this actually happening as nil. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point as well. A question, then, does anyone have an opinion about whether this should be an article on it's own? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn, you may be right regarding the scholarly level of the sources; I haven't examined them in great detail. However, there can certainly be concern about perception here; Christian publishers providing at least half of these sources, here commenting on "Judaism". Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Neolander, what parts of this suggested edit fit your conception of content "that criticizes the precepts/doctrines of Judaism" and are thus appropriate for this article? And Jayjg, could you expand your comment about perception? Surely everyone is used to the notion that non-Jews are sometimes critical of Judaism, and I can't imagine that you're suggesting that this article only include criticisms by Jews. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Who said anything about criticism by Jews? I wrote about scholarly sources, and mentioned the names of several non-Jewish critics. Wow, that certainly came out of left field. No, the concern here is that one not have the section become "Christian believers explaining why their religion is better than all the rest". Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nuujinn: the criticism that "Judaism was held to be fundamentally flawed by the sin of self-righteousness" probably belongs in Anti-Judaism; on the other hand the criticism "it is a religion based in law instead of faith, and holds that salvation is possible through adherence to the law and performance of good works" could be appropriate for this article, but it needs additional secondary sources to document it. Paths forward include:
- Add content into Paul of Tarsus and Judaism
- Add content into Anti-Judaism#History of Christian anti-Judaism
- Split the content: some into this article; some into one of the above articles
- A new stand-alone article (but double-check Paul of Tarsus and Judaism first)
- --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Neolander, what parts of this suggested edit fit your conception of content "that criticizes the precepts/doctrines of Judaism" and are thus appropriate for this article? And Jayjg, could you expand your comment about perception? Surely everyone is used to the notion that non-Jews are sometimes critical of Judaism, and I can't imagine that you're suggesting that this article only include criticisms by Jews. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- One way to look at it is: There are two articles that are WP:Summary Style articles that summarize the criticisms of Judaism: Anti-Judaism and Criticism of Judaism. The former is for criticisms that relate to faith-based arguments (e.g. J. doesnt follow Islam or Christianity); the latter article is for all other criticisms. Based on the latest draft of the proposed content, it looks like the proposed content probably belongs in Anti-Judaism, maybe in section Anti-Judaism#Early Christianity and the Judaizers. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
bris
How can any rational person in today's society deny that circumcision without anesthetic is painful? There is plenty of evidence that it is! 76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not the only (or most contentious) thing your edit claimed, is it? Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and who is the judge of this, what ever this thing is? God? Please try to work others. 76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are the judge of this. Please review these fundamental content policies, which explain exactly what material is considered appropriate for Wikipedia articles, and how it must be written. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jayjig, I'd like to assume you are an intelligent man. I know your history and you I hate to say this but you do not work with other people. Normally I'd say these are fair, but let's be honest, you know that this is not original research. You know studies have been done to prove that its painful. Yes, I can show you a source, but you aren't going to like it are you? We know that its true, simply because history shows you that will not. Do you actually deny that such studies have been done? I don't understand why you want to hurt the validity of wikipedia by pretending that policies are the judge when there is evidence everywhere to show that will go out of your way to always interpret these policies how you like them. Do you really deny that circumcision is painful? Really? I am asking you now, or do you think I'm really, really, really the first person who has every suggested this. Really. 76.65.33.149 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Refusing to supply sources because of a preconceived notion of how it will be received is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've been asked for sources, please post them so others can view what you are using. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Barek, the disagreement does not seem to be with you. I think you are missing the point here. Jayjig has not co-operated and has outright lied by claiming this person is using original research when in fact it is clear to everyone that this is not original research. This is a violation of wikipedia policy involving assuming good faith. I don't understand why jayjig did not get a temporary block as well as the edits he was reverting were not vandalism and certainly legitimate. As for sources, I believe the sources already cited in the article include references to circumcision being painful and I doubt that Jayjig even read any of them. Clearly he is not co-operating at all. 76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- IP editor, just to be clear, and as I said already, you didn't just claim that circumcision was painful, but rather stated in Wikipedia's voice that it is "painful, cruel, genital mutilation". If anyone "outright lied", it would be the editor who repeatedly claimed the dispute here was merely about whether or not it is "painful". Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Barek, the disagreement does not seem to be with you. I think you are missing the point here. Jayjig has not co-operated and has outright lied by claiming this person is using original research when in fact it is clear to everyone that this is not original research. This is a violation of wikipedia policy involving assuming good faith. I don't understand why jayjig did not get a temporary block as well as the edits he was reverting were not vandalism and certainly legitimate. As for sources, I believe the sources already cited in the article include references to circumcision being painful and I doubt that Jayjig even read any of them. Clearly he is not co-operating at all. 76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Refusing to supply sources because of a preconceived notion of how it will be received is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've been asked for sources, please post them so others can view what you are using. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jayjig, I'd like to assume you are an intelligent man. I know your history and you I hate to say this but you do not work with other people. Normally I'd say these are fair, but let's be honest, you know that this is not original research. You know studies have been done to prove that its painful. Yes, I can show you a source, but you aren't going to like it are you? We know that its true, simply because history shows you that will not. Do you actually deny that such studies have been done? I don't understand why you want to hurt the validity of wikipedia by pretending that policies are the judge when there is evidence everywhere to show that will go out of your way to always interpret these policies how you like them. Do you really deny that circumcision is painful? Really? I am asking you now, or do you think I'm really, really, really the first person who has every suggested this. Really. 76.65.33.149 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V are the judge of this. Please review these fundamental content policies, which explain exactly what material is considered appropriate for Wikipedia articles, and how it must be written. Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and who is the judge of this, what ever this thing is? God? Please try to work others. 76.65.33.149 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have degenerated into ad hominem attacks and it is not clear to me which part of the article was objectionable, to whom, and why. To me, criticism of circumcision would seem to be a notable topic for this article, but is the source a reputable source? BTW I think the circumcision section looks OK now, at least on a superficial glance. It just needs the opposite perspective (defenders/apologists for circumcision). The painfulness of circumcision, BTW, may be why it is performed on boys too young to remember, using wine as an "anesthetic." Judaism, BTW, is not unique in having body mutilation as part of initiation. Islam also mandates circumcision and the Maori people and a number of other groups traditionally required tattooing, a practice that is forbidden in Judaism. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at the back-and-forth edits about this, and I agree with Jayjg and Barek. But it's not because I doubt that circumcision is painful (what I do or do not doubt does not matter anyway, per WP:OR), but rather, because I think it's more encyclopedic and more professional to use language that includes those qualifiers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The qualifier could be interpreted as an implication that the pain of circumcision is greatly disputed. This is simply not the case. If anyone sincerely disputed the painfulness of it, it is certainly a minority view now, even to the extent of being oscure or antiquated in the medical profession. I think that in this case the qualifiers are simply not appropriate although I agree they could be more encyclopedic in other circumstances. Imagine if someone were to write in wikipedia some believe that Jews were killed by the Germans in WWII. Would you think that would be more encyclopedic. Obviously some claim it didn't happen, so by your logic, it would be appropriate. 76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- IP editor, as I said already, you didn't just claim that circumcision was painful, but rather stated in Wikipedia's voice that it is "painful, cruel, genital mutilation". But thank you for yet again proving Godwin's law. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You know what, please give me a few days, and I'll try to track down a reliable reference from the medical literature about circumcision and pain. We'll see what that indicates, and then we can discuss how best to express it on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- The qualifier could be interpreted as an implication that the pain of circumcision is greatly disputed. This is simply not the case. If anyone sincerely disputed the painfulness of it, it is certainly a minority view now, even to the extent of being oscure or antiquated in the medical profession. I think that in this case the qualifiers are simply not appropriate although I agree they could be more encyclopedic in other circumstances. Imagine if someone were to write in wikipedia some believe that Jews were killed by the Germans in WWII. Would you think that would be more encyclopedic. Obviously some claim it didn't happen, so by your logic, it would be appropriate. 76.66.106.200 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
See Circumcision#Pain_and_pain_relief. -- Avi (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Good link, thanks! Wouldn't you know it, Wikipedia already has some good information about this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Please make sure that any sources used are specific "Criticism of Judaism", however, which is the topic of this article, rather than criticisms of circumcision, a rite practiced by many different religions, ethnicities, groups, and individuals. We need to avoid even more WP:SYNTH, which is already a huge problem in this article. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear here: the IP editor is claiming that the issue here is merely about whether or not circumcision is painful. However, his repeated edits[1][2][3][4] actually changed (emphasis mine)
Judaism has been criticized for its practice of brit milah, a circumcision ritual performed on young boys, because the ritual is perceived as painful, cruel, tantamount to genital mutilation...
to
Judaism has been criticized for its practice of brit milah, a circumcision ritual performed on young boys, because the ritual is painful, cruel, genital mutilation...
Stating this in Wikipedia's voice is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. And his edits here and at Antisemitism were reverted by six different editors, a total of ten times. Of those ten reverts by six editors, I made exactly one, so his focus on me is similarly misleading. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Philosophical criticism is missing
Much of the criticism here seems rather petty. I think more fertile ground for objective criticism of Judaism can be found in:
- Nietzsche's characterization of Judaism as a slave morality
- Kant's argument in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason that Judaism isn't a religion at all, but a political entity (possible source)
- I think Spinoza had some interesting criticism, too, but it escapes me at the moment.
I'm not really sure how to approach writing this -- perhaps a new section on philosophical criticism? 137.254.4.8 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- IP: Yes, you are correct, the article is missing some of the more important philosophers. It does include some Spinoza material, but perhaps that could be improved. Other editors have suggested adding material on Kant ... I think it was he (or another philosopher in his era) who criticized Judaism for being a "religion without morals", by which he meant (Im paraphrasing here) that Judaism focused too heavily on laws/rules/politics and not so much on morality (his judgement, not mine). But I have not researched Kant at all, and I may be totally wrong (it wouldn't be the first time :-) If you want to add a new "Philosophy" section based on Kant or Nietzsche, go ahead. Make sure all the material you add is supported with high-quality sources (see WP:RS), and identify all your sources in footnotes. Don't be too timid: any mistakes you make can always be rectified. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- One of these days I'm going to have time too resume work on this article :-) Here are some more "philosophical" critics to consider at that time:
- Karl Marx
- Immanuel Kant
- G.W.F Hegel
- D.F.Strauus
- Ludwig Feuerbach
- Bruno Bauer
- One of these days I'm going to have time too resume work on this article :-) Here are some more "philosophical" critics to consider at that time: