Talk:Orthodox Judaism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Hasidic Couple photo redux

There have been legitimate requests on behalf of the couple to take the photo out of the article. Why the push to keep it in? -- Avi (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you prove this? I really don't believe it. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not censored. Bstone (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Censored, shmensored. Let's be a little normal and reasonable for a second. How would you like if someone surreptitiously took a picture of you while you're reading this and then added the pic to this article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be entertained. You do know many Muslims are incensed that there are paintings of Mohammad on wiki. Yet the policy states it's not censored. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, how about if someone takes a pic of your body part and adds it to this article? Of course there's a difference, but believe it or not, in the ultra-orthodox hasidic culture, the public posting of this pic is not far removed from my foregoing analogy.
I also don't understand why you have a hard time believing they asked to have the pic removed. Agreed, it's unlikely that they themselves saw the pic, but all it takes is one reader who recognizes them and calls them to tell them the exciting news.
We are not dealing with censoring anything. If someone were to add another pic of another couple nobody will say peep unless they complain as well.
Even if the removal of their pic would violate some sort of WP policy, this would be the ideal situation for the application of some common sense and to ignore all rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, Bstone, are you accusing me of lying? Whatever happened to assume good faith? . Regardless, to fulfill the Gemara in Bava Metzia 49a on the pasuk Leviticus 19:36, ask any OTRS volunteer to look at VRTS ticket # 2008020610017499. -- Avi (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have pointed to 19:18: "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant the Gemara of הן שלך :) -- Avi (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of this issue the last time made it clear that, although there was indeed a request, it was not possible to verify that the request was made by the couple in question. So, now we have the whole thing kicked off again by an anonymous/IP edit, an action editors are endorsing with reference to religious views/ideas. It ought to go without saying that the content of Wikipedia pages is not governed by halacha, and I don't think anyone has produced an argument saying that this photo violates any of Wikipedia's rules. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomo, I know you have not seen the email trail in OTRS, but I have. The picture is causing distress to the couple and their relatives, there is no reason for it to be in the article. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete the picture. Enough with it. They most certainly don't want their picture on Wikipedia. If you want, I myself volunteer to have my own picture on Wikipedia, with full shabbos dress (shtreimel, bekitshe). But not with my wife. No chareidi (especially, no chassidishe) woman wants her picture on Wikipedia. It is very reasonable to believe that this couple indeed did complain against this picture. They might very well have a large family in America (or Israel) who include English-speakers with internet access, or maybe colleagues at work or friends anywhere, who informed them of this picture. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest, yet again, that we edit Wikipedia according to the rules of Wikipedia, as against some other set of rules. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and WP:BLP applies to pictures too. There is no harm removing the photo, only in keeping it. -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Which part of WP:BLP does the photo violate? I know it applies to images, but I'm not sure what provision you're referring to. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
"The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment....This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." This image is causing harm to real people for basically no good reason. We even switch out images of people in articles about them if the original image is causing them distress. Here the article isn't even about these people, and the image was taken without their knowledge or permission, and what purpose is it serving here?! -- Avi (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The point that was made when this was discussed in February is that there was precious little reason to believe that the person who contacted Wikipedia on this issue was the couple in question; anyone could send an email message claiming to be those people. Given that this was the conclusion reached at that point and the photo has remained on the page since then, what has happened now to suddenly convince everyone that the complaint was real? As best I can tell, nothing; the only thing that has happened today is that an anonymous/IP editor removed the photo -- and now we're discussing the whole thing again as if we never did before. If you go back to the discussions at the time (on this talk page and others linked in sections above), you will see that there was a bit of a campaign against the photographer - and thus reason to doubt that the people who wrote to Wikipedia were in fact the couple in question. Again, the question is, what would lead us to a different conclusion now? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Another e-mail came in to OTRS from the same parties this week. -- Avi (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. And what made it more convincing than the one sent in February? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Having looked at the entire email chain, there is enough corroborating evidence to me (email name corroborates business identity of phone number supplied, for example) to say that this is not connected with the other attempts on Shankbone, but a bona fide request. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If possible

Could someone have a look at the quotebox in the beliefs section, maybe it is just me, but I can only see 6 out of the 13 principles of faith on the page, can someone see if they can sort the box out, as I am unable? Joshuaselig (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see all 13 (using Firefox and a resolution of 1280x1024) -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Torah including written Law

The author wrote: "Orthodox Judaism's central belief is that Torah, including the Written Law, was given directly from God to Moses and applies in all times and places" See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Written_Law.html 

Perhaps, the author meant,"Orthodox Judaism's central belief
is that Torah, including the Oral Law, ...".

CreateW (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have changed it. In the future feel free to be bold and edit it yourself. Jon513 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Orthodoxy link

In the text, there's a sentence that goes, "...termed the Torah im Derech Eretz approach, or "neo-Orthodoxy..." where, as you can see, "neo-Orthodoxy" is interlinked to an article that defines the "Christian" approach to theology in Protestantism - therefore, it's confusing and has nothing to do with Judaism. I'm removing the offending link.--Monozigote (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"ultra-Orthodox"

Why is this term considered by some to be pejorative? I've seen it used in the media where I live (New Zealand) many times and no one seems to bat an eyelid at it. From my POV, 'ultra' simply means the far end of a spectrum. EG, Ultra High Frequency.

Your thoughts please.

StuZealand (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ani Ma'amin

The Thirteen Principles of Faith as given in the article are not Maimonides' formulation but rather the popular liturgical rendition Ani Ma'amin. This should not be attributed to Maimonides as it is in the article. CharlesMartel (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Shouldn't Rabbinic Judaism be merged into this Article?

It seems to me that Rabbinic Judaism is just another way to describe Orthodox Judaism. Proud Novice (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Ok, then I want pics of Moses Sofer and Israel Meir Kagan, for a start. מהמברטה (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree re Moses Sofer as he was an important figure in first issues related to non-Orthodox Judaism.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?

Stop removing this from the article

Lisa Liel is trying to remove this important clarification from the article:

Both terms are controversial: in some circles, the label "Haredi" is considered pejorative, while others consider the label "ultra-Orthodox" pejorative. Some Haredi Jews have taken to referring to themselves as Torah Jews, but this term as well is considered to be a pejorative criticism of all other religious Jewish groups.
She incorrectly claims that the term "Torah Judaism" is used by Modern Orthodox Judaism. That is way off base. In fact, just link to our article on Torah Judaism - it clearly states that this term is a Haredi criticism of Modern Orthodox Judaism. Her edit is not supported by the facts. (I have done some research; I have yet to find a Modern Orthodox Jewish rabbi who agrees with Ms. Liel. Modern Orthodox rabbis clearly understand this term to be an attack upon them. It certainly isn't aimed at secular or Reform Jews. Even the Conservative Jews are not the target of this term.) RK (talk)
"Torah Judaism" is used by quite a lot of Modern Orthodox Jews, like Rabbi Tovia Singer, a popular radio host on Arutz Sheva radio ( www.israelnn.com ) and author of several books. And if I as a non-Jew know that, so should you. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence in the section "Origin of the Term Orthodox" reads as follows:

"While many Orthodox Jews accept the label "Orthodox", others reject and criticise it because it was never traditionally applied to Jews who strictly interpreted and followed halakha in ancient times or the Middle Ages. Many Orthodox Jews prefer to call their faith Torah Judaism."

This is true. RK believes otherwise, but it's been my experience with him elsewhere on the Internet that he labels all but the most far-left Modern Orthodoxy (JOFA, YCT, Edah) as Haredi.
This is incorrect; I have never held this position - ever. In any case, please stop the comments about me. This webpage is only for discussions about this encyclopedia article. Discussions about a Wikipedia editor are off-topic. RK (talk)
Basically, he is attempting to introduce an unsourced and demonstrably false claim that "Torah Judaism" is a term used only by Haredim. And he is further attempting to add his own opinion that this term is considered pejorative by non-Haredim, which is at best WP:OR, and at worst, simple polemicizing on his part.
I'm by no means Haredi myself, and as RK is well aware, I've been self-identifying as a Torah Jew for years and years. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Lisa Liel is incorrect. I apologize if my comments were somehow unclear. Lisa, please read this carefully: I never said that the term is only used by Haredim as an attack against Modern Orthodox Jews. This is not my position. Rather, I merely said that the use of the term is controversial among some people. Ironically, I agree with many of your recent statements, but you seem to have misunderstood mine, and thus see yourself in opposition to someone who agrees with you. RK (talk)


It is most certainly true that there are a number of Haredi groups which use the term "Torah Jews" to refer to Haredim. For example, the Israeli political party UTJ, Yahadut HaTorah. Also, the related expression Olam HaTorah is frequently heard in Haredi circles - and when used, this refers to Haredi circles only. The newspaper affiliated with Degel, Yated Ne'eman, also uses it. If you want some examples, see the usage of Torah Judaism here: [1]. You should be able to discern that in all of these articles, the term "Torah Judaism" refers to Haredi forms only. As for the second issue: there should indeed be a mentioning of the controversy of "Haredi" vs "Ultra-Orthodox". The fact that the biggest paper in the state of NJ decided to start using the former instead of the latter is certainly significant. Now if you want to claim that this lawyer is insignificant, fine - just write "A New Jersey lawyer convinced...." instead of writing his full name. But the fact itself is most certainly worthy of being in the article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. I merely think that the terminology of one newspaper in one state is not (at all) relevant for an encyclopedia article! RK (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If it were a local paper in some mountain town in Montana, ok, I'd agree. But we're talking about the largest newspaper of NJ here - an area which includes Lakewood, Union City and other areas with a significant Haredi population. It's not just any newspaper, and it isn't just any state. I think that does make it relevant. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey all, my first post in this discussion, but I want to add that this is not one State, but global (the JTA), national (RNA) and mutli-state (NJ, NY, PA). Since only the term "Orthodox" is left, may I suggest that including this information is not only relevant, but actually clarifies the article. 19:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [edited 15:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC) WP:REDACTED this comment was partially deleted by me, the original writer, because of privacy - and (hopefully) only what was necessary.]
Are you saying that instead of "ultra-Orthodox", they now write "Orthodox"? I thought they would have replaced it with "Haredi". That term seems to gain more mainstream acceptance as of late. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving orthodox communities

There doesn't seem to be an article about orthodox communities but Footsteps is an organization dedicated to helping those who choose to leave them. Was mentioned in an article about a suicide by a former member. -- Previous unsigned comment by user:Jhansonxi

The Forward has articles and memoirs from the ex-Orthodox pretty frequently. There are books on it. The novel Foreskin's Lament is about it. deisenbe (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Orthodox Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern Orthodoxy v. Haredi "Ultra-Orthodox"

The statements

"Orthodoxy is not a single movement or school of thought. There is no single rabbinical body to which all rabbis are expected to belong, or any one organization representing member congregations. In the 20th century, a segment of the Orthodox population (as represented by the World Agudath Israel movement) disagreed with Modern Orthodoxy and took a stricter approach. Such rabbis viewed innovations and modifications within Jewish law and customs with extreme care and caution. This form of Judaism may be referred to as Haredi Judaism or "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism"."


suggest that:

a) "Modern Orthodoxy" predated "Haredi or Ultra-Orthodoxy". (In other words "Modern Orthodoxy" was the status quo).

b) Haredi Judaism is a movement represented by the World Agudath Israel Movement (is a single movement).

c) Haredi Judaism was invented in the 20th century. (Not the World Agudath Israel Movement but Haredi Judaism.

These claims require verification and clarification.

d) Modern Orthodox rabbis make innovations and modifications to Jewish law and customs without exercising caution and care. Or, that the level of caution and care that Haredi Rabbis insist upon is unreasonably "extreme".

This claim is not neutral and is probably not what the author intended.

Also, the article mentions "World Agudath Israel" and makes no mention of "Eidah HaChareidis", why is that?

Note that In Rabbi S.R. Hirsch's famous "Open Letter" to Rabbi Seligmann Bamberger (1877) Hirsch mentions that both he and Bamberger were contemptuously referred to as "Ultra Orthodox". (Collected Writings of S.R Hirsch vol. VI page 200.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DewofyourYouth (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orthodox Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Principles of Faith

User:FuriouslySerene removed the quote box with the 13 Principles of Faith of Maimonides, citing WP:Undue with no further explanation. This makes no sense to me. WP:Undue refers to the giving of a minority point of view more prominence than it deserves. On the contrary, the 13 Principles are held to be dogmatic by the vast majority of orthodox Jews and this is the primary, normative and majority position within Orthodox Judaism - notwithstanding the other positions detailed in such works as Marc Shapiro's "Limits of Orthodox Theology". Therefore, unless someone can come up with a better explanation as to why it should be removed, it will be reinstated. MosheEmes (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

See, for example: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/articles_of_faith.html "The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles." MosheEmes (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"the 13 Principles are held to be dogmatic by the vast majority of orthodox Jews and this is the primary, normative and majority position within Orthodox Judaism" - do you have a citation for this (certainly the Jewish virtual library makes no such claim)? This is an article about Orthodox Judaism, not Maimonides, or Hareidi Orthodox beliefs. It takes up nearly half of the "Beliefs" section. It's entirely disproportionate to include. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Certainly the Jewish Virtual Library does make such claim, and says: "An excellent summary of the core beliefs of Orthodox Judaism may be found in the Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Orthodox.html
A fascinating source comes from Solomon Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1896. He was not orthodox, yet he avers: "Among the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews, who accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides must indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap, moreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century had hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the poets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show a poem or a prayer founded on these Articles. R. Jacob Molin (1420) of Germany speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the burden of which was the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the common people with great devotion. The numerous commentaries and homilies written on the same topic would form a small library in themselves. [n. 14] But on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti-Maimonists, that is to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated by Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong and respectable minority." source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/studies.htm
Also consider that the poem Yigdal, based on the 13 Principles, is found in every traditional siddur, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi.
Is that enough yet? MosheEmes (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
FuriouslySerene complained that it takes up nearly half the beliefs section. I agree that the text box as it stands is awkward, especially its placement at the left side where we naturally start reading as the text flow is left to right. I seem to remember a long time ago it was different. In any case I have moved it to the right side, reduced the text and made the font size smaller to help out the aesthetic issue. MosheEmes (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Those are lovely quotes, but I don't think they support the far more expansive assertion you made. There's also no mention of Maimonides in the beliefs section, so it's not clear why they are being reproduced in their entirety there. Please see WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I don't think it proportionate to keep the full text in here. If the text is to be kept, I do agree having it on the right side makes it more readable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Intro strange

"The majority of Jews killed during the Holocaust were more or less Orthodox.[2] It is estimated that they numbered between 50-70% of those who perished (3,000,000-4,200,000).[3]" - seems a bit strange for an encyclopaedia to me, 'more or less' is very awkward not to mention that if it's 50% then it's not a majority... I get the need to have a reference to the damage done to Orthodox Judaism by the Holocaust, and I'm sure someone cleverer than me can do it with the required tact and informativeness. 90.214.50.250 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC) But it wasn't 50%, it was "between 50-70" and so above 50. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

what does "mass revelation" mean?

Why is the word "mass" added to "revelation"? What specifically does it mean/add? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Mass revelation (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation#Mass_revelation): Judaism is the only religion in history that is based on a mass-revelation of God, as opposed to revelations or visions to individuals or small groups of persons or family members, i.e. Quran, Mormonism, Christianity. The account of this mass-event, when a large group of people became witnesses to a revelation of Yahweh, is recorded in the parashah Yitro, the seventeenth weekly Torah portion, in the second book of the Torah. The parashah tells of Jethro's organizational counsel to Moses and God's mass-revelation, and of the giving of the Ten Commandments to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRM001 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thank you, I changed the link to go directly there. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

God's "impalpability"

to which of Maimonides' principles does "impalpability" correspond? It is an unusual word in English. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Dati

Concerning User:AddMore-III's erroneous edits about meaning of the word Dati: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Dati means Religious. Dati Leumi means National Religious.

Read this: Hebrew Wiki, Forward, The Times of Israel.

I'm reverting your edits.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, none of these sources support your claim. What's written there is that Dati means "religious", which is indeed correct. Apart from that, in Israel the word primarily (when not used generically) refers to religious Zionists or at least non-Haredim. I reverted your misguided edit, apparently made due to your insufficient command of Hebrew. While perhaps a redirect of Dati to Religion in Israel would have been better, the current one to Orthodox Judaism is glaringly wrong. AddMore-III (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orthodox Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Orthodox Judaism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Orthodox Judaism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wertheimer":

  • From Haredi Judaism: Wertheimer, Jack. "What You Don't Know About the Ultra-Orthodox." Commentary Magazine. 1 July 2015. 4 September 2015.
  • From Chabad: Wertheimer, Jack (August 2008). "A Census of Jewish Supplementary Schools in the United States: 2006–2007" (PDF). Avi Chai Foundation. Retrieved January 13, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed from article

I removed this text:

It should be noted that on January 7, 2009, Hamodia reports that New Jersey attorney (Redacted), Esq., convinced the largest newspaper in New Jersey, the Star-Ledger, to drop the term "ultra-Orthodox".[1]

References

  1. ^ Avraham Weissman interviews (Redacted) in Ten to One on January 7, 2009, page A3

The achievements of a lawyer in changing the terminology practice of his local newspaper are not relevant to the history and definition of Orthodox Judaism. If there is an article on the various names of Orthodox Jewish groups, and how they relate to each other, then this information could be relevant there. (Prof. Eli Segal in fact has such a page on his website.) RK (talk

However the term ultra-orthodox was created by the Israeli medias to pinpoint groups opposing sionism and nowdays to pinpoint leoumi-dati settlers, not very consistent! True that there are modern-othodoxs, but the others are merely orthodoxs without any extras or ultras :-)--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP modified this comment [2]. I reverted it because modifying comments in that way shouldn't be done. However noting that the IP is from New Jersey, I wonder if it's someone associated with the attorney unhappy about this reference for whatever reason. Since the attorney seems to be a relatively unknown individual, I've redacted the name as I don't think it's necessary to understand this discussion. If someone does feel there is justification to re-add the content to the article, it's likely the title should be in full unredacted form but I have to agree this doesn't seem significant enough to add. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting most of the article

AddMore-III, you've stated here that you deleted almost all of the article without consensus. The article was developed over time with consensus. That is not acceptable. Furthermore, you need to represent all aspects of Orthodox Judaism with due weight; that means both subject-wise and geographically. You actually seems to have some European Orthodox topic experience that few so far have demonstrated. Why not create a separate section describing all aspects of the European Orthodox scene, including a list of some places with high concentrations in a due manner which actually correlates with their numbers and notability otherwise? Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

AddMore-III, there ought to be a convincing argument made to justify removing that much sourced content. I'm looking at the edit and am having a difficult time rationalizing its removal. By all means do add sections about Israel and Europe, but if you don't intend to, what grounds do you have to resist expansion in a US section? Why is it "irrelevant"? At a glance, it seems like a fine expansion of one areas. Hopefully, there will be more to come.El_C 20:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Very simple. I must at first note that implying I edited "without consensus", while the old version years ago was "with consensus", is baseless. Hundreds watch this article, some edited it alongside me, and I've seen no attempt to oppose my revamping of the article. Now, to removing that addition. First, our definitions of "sourced" are a bit different. I don't regard the Korea Times/USA Today as much of sources, and prefer academically-published material or research papers by PEW. The addition may be classified into three parts. One about the history of Jewish immigration to the US, certainly irrelevant in the section "demographics", and barely to the article in general; second, a population comparison of a single settlement between 2008-12, the population of which is just 60% Jewish. And mainly, a shopping list of American towns with Orthodox communities like Mahwah, Manalapan, Jackson Township etc. There are thousands of Orthodox communities worldwide, we can also start listing Israeli West Bank settlements or Jerusalem neighbourhoods which are predominantly Orthodox, but it will only expand the article with trivia. I utterly resist this shopping-list-style and I am certain other editors will too. No less problematic, as criteria for inclusion of towns in his "sizable and rapidly growing Orthodox communities throughout New Jersey", the other party relies on PR-style articles from second-rate newspapers like this one. In general, he did not appeal to some conclusive demographic estimate, but simply picked newspaper articles which vaguely report that an Orthodox community in X or Y exists. That's nearly SYNTHESIS. Compare my addition regarding USA Orthodox demographics, relying on an up-to-date, authoritative high-quality source which fully supports the info. I resist jumbled data assembled in this manner in any article. AddMore-III (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one. Improve what you perceive to be a problem, rather than blanket reverting notable and constructive material (that had been on Wikipedia for years, by the way). As El_C also said, hopefully you can add constructive sections describing European Orthodox demographics, if not also Israel. Castncoot (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't read any of your comments so I don't know which one of you I'm going to agree with or anger. This article should not list a general "In city X we have Orthodox Jews and in City Y we have X amount of Jews, etc." It should have maybe "In America, the number of Orthodox Jews number around X and have grown from X to Y and predominantly live in the X area..." or something like that. This article is not about Jews in America or Israel, we have articles about that. This is about Orthodox Judaism as a whole, and we shouldn't bog it down with trivia that can change on a weekly or yearly basis. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
And that's essentially what we have with my restored edits - one moderate-length paragraph for the United States. Lakewood, New Jersey is home to the world's largest yeshiva outside Israel and its Orthodox population growth has been exponential, so that numerical growth is notably worth mentioning. Lakewood is part of the greater New York metropolitan area, which itself hosts the largest Orthodox population outside Israel, also worth mentioning in the U.S. section. We then have a separate fork for List of Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States. I hope someone will create a similar paragraph for Europe. (By the way, it's generally a good idea to read others' comments on a Talk page before commenting oneself.) Castncoot (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the way the article is now is very bad. If there is a section for the US, it should be about the history of Orthodox Judaism in the US, perhaps a bit on Issac Leeser maybe, but now it's just a hodgepodge of cities and townships, which is exactly what it shouldn't be. That is not what I said in my OP. My OP was to have one sentence perhaps, not an entire paragraph listing half a dozen places. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe you're onto something. The U.S. section would have perhaps a couple of sentences about history, one or two sentences about geography, one or two sentences with demographic data, and one or two corresponding images. I'd be open to you laying this out once the editing restriction is lifted. Castncoot (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Lifted. By all means, give it a go. Just without the edit warring this time. El_C 01:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Funny that I'm slandered and denigrated for "European POV-pushing", without any sanction or even rebuke against the offender, while his only interest seems to add some townlets in New Jersey. I strongly object to "in the US"/"Europe"/"Israel" separate sections. They will be artificial. Hasidim and Litvaks are the same everywhere, the MO are little distinguishable. History is to be dealt with entirely on its own (I didn't separate "Hungary" and "Germany", the cradles of Orthodoxy in the 19th century, and I'm still not sure how I'll cover later developments). Demographics are easily dealt with in a few sentences, and even if we'll have geography it will be minimal (otherwise there are hundreds of localities to list here). But for now, let's focus on the controversial edit. Sir Joseph and myself seem to oppose the latest addition. User:El_C, casting vote? AddMore-III (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a vote — but I have no immediate preference. Although WP:PRESERVE is a factor for me, unless offset with alternate additions, of course. El_C 16:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE is sentinel here, I believe as well. Let's keep the editing civil, please. Castncoot (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Even you acknowledged the inadequacy of your edits above. I haven't removed that townlets' list yet, I'm waiting for the debate between yourself and Sir Joseph. In the meantime, the section I just removed concerns Jewish immigration in to the US, a general subject unrelated to Orthodox Judaism. AddMore-III (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time fathoming your comments, but just to be clear - these topics are intricately interwoven and interdependent, rather than unrelated or irrelevant as you are trying to portray. This is an encyclopedia, where context is important and pertinent. I'm also not sure what debate you are referring to, and I certainly cannot compel another editor to attend any debate, much less one that I myself am not aware was apparently being planned by a third editor. WP:PRESERVE is sentinel here. Hope that helps. Castncoot (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Wiki-lawyering and obscure acronyms are not sufficient to stuff irrelevant trivia into articles. Otherwise, I'd be able to put a section about Ulysses Grant's drinking habits right in the middle of Abraham Lincoln, or perhaps something long about Lincoln's gardening expenses. All I see in this talkpage are two users opposed to your edits and one neutral. You wrote that "I'd be open to you laying this out once the editing restriction is lifted". Sir Joseph, my apologies, could you return to the TP? There's no way I'll have a list of New Jersey townlets in the middle of the demographics section. AddMore-III (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
AddMore-III, in the USA section we should have the history of Jews in the USA and where they came to settle, etc. and why, but that's not the same as listing current demographics. For that we have a "see also" at the top of the section. People move and we shouldn't need to have this section require updating, and this is not what this section is about. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Scissor vs. Ax: a discussion

From the above "Deleting most of the article" subtitle, I think the above "Scissor vs. Ax" has a basis. Some particulars:

  • major Orthodox-identifying population shifts due to Kiruv, larger families, intermarriage: why delete a secular newspaper article's citation? (Garvin) That deletion also killed a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs citation.
  • statement/book citation "Orthodox Jews write the name of G-d with a dash"
  • Theology - sequencing of subsections: shouldn't "Core beliefs" precede "Orthodox attitudes"
  • "Rules to Live By" NYTimes citation: what's wrong with it? why delete it (and the "One Brooklyn Rabbi's Long Shadow" nytimes.com ref)?
  • Groups (subsection) - "Spanish and Portuguese" gave NY a major push. Each group listed cites a specific link to Halachic

authorities. These authorities, collectively, a the basis of understanding Orthodox Judaism.

  • Kitniot - it should be a visible part of the article. Major stores rearrange their aisles the day after Purim, and space is made for Kosher-for-Passover items available to those who eat Kitnios/Kitniot.
  • Kippah/Kipa - the wording ", and a skullcap (kippah)" can have "or kipa"
  • Why is no source better than a citation of myjewishlearning.com
  • Is "Classical Judaism did incorporate a tradition of belief in" more clear than "Judaism includes"
  • LLbook - is it better to have a book listed twice, once for page 81, once for page 82? what about use of "rp|p.xx" (Leila Leah Bronner's book)
  • Kol Isha - this is a major Orthodox "Daily life" issue (w. citations)
  • Upsherin (however transliterated) - was cut away (yes, maybe a pun is OK here!)
  • Zev Eleff: some of what he wrote seems to be part of the article. His information about Orthodox Jewish migration #s (250K to 3.45mm, 1880 vs 1924) was axed. why?

By adding CN/Citation needed, and possibly using the "Better source" template, there is less chance of being charged with "Deleting most of the article."

  • Is it really better to end a sentence with "and so forth" ("Definitions" section)?
  • Is wording such as Quote "Orthodoxization" was a contingent process endQuote the best Wiki can offer?

One more thing: human considerations. Squishing out the blanks between major fields (title,url,date) makes editing the wiki text more difficult. Mentch-Lich-keit! Pi314m (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Any editor who will scrutinize your edits will note that you added an entire subsection for "kitniyot", a marginal custom; that you inserted a section named "educational institutions", which covers exactly two out of thousands; added a long, bolted list starting with "Given this (relative) philosophic flexibility", which lacks refs and is essay-like, reflecting the author's opinions and duplicating info already present which was more neutral; Added a bolted list of Maimonides' 13 as "core beliefs", though the article carefully qualifies their status as such; added the sub-sections "Movements, organizations, and groups", which duplicates data already given and is bad and trivial; same goes for the sub-sections "Haredi Judaism" and "Hasidic Judaism", and the section about Mizrahim/Romaniotes etc. (the former aren't a thing, the latter barely exist); you deleted some important details while "scissoring" (like the Hungarian nobility, which is the main reason Orthodoxy developed in Hungary) in what I can only describe as bad judgement; and you wrenched entire parts of the "History" section and threw them around out of context in "Attitudes", "Politics". That's not even everything, I just lack enough patience to list all the problems. Your edits are of bad quality and severely affect the readability of the article. They also have NPOV problems ("in adherence to the continuum of its divine origin" given as fact, for one). I believe that any moderately competent writer will have to agree. AddMore-III (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
To say that Kitniot is a marginal custom defies reality. Major food companies that market to the NY/NJ Orthodox market no longer sell Kitniot (during the month preceding Passover). NYTimes considered it newsworthy to explain. Pi314m (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
AddMore-III—you say "you added an entire subsection for 'kitniyot', a marginal custom". It is not a "marginal custom", we have an article on Kitniyot, and the subsection you refer to was only one sentence long. Bus stop (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


I Restored the "added" NYTimes Kitniot citation. Pi314m (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't opining, I was stating a simple fact. There are a bajillion other customs, observed all year round by all communities, and we certainly won't cover them in separate sub-sections (especially one that is one sentence long, that's not MoS or intrinsically notable). Or at all. The NYT reports all kinds of stuff, it's the weirdest excuse I've ever heard for adding data to a specific article. Here's a report about measles in the Orthodox community, maybe the topic should have a sub-section in this article, too? AddMore-III (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The comparison is not apt. Unlike measles, kitniyot has "religious" status. (Measles has "medical" or "health" status.) How is Kitniyot a "marginal custom"? "Among Orthodox Ashkenazi and some Sephardic Jews, the custom (minhag) during Passover is to refrain from not only products of the five grains but also other grains and legumes." While it has the religious status of "minhag", I don't think it is "marginal". I think it is widely practiced, at least among Ashkenazim. Bus stop (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the (20:10, 26 August 2019) summary of the NYTimes' words about Kitniot as some low-quality culinary advice .. let's keep on going (yes, not a great pun) to Kipa

  • by Kippah, restored added "or kipa" - citing NYTimes: quote=... kipa, the Hebrew word for skullcap, is increasingly used by American Jews in place of the Yiddish. Pi314m (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I've never seen it spelled that way, and you should also know by now that you can't use a blog as a RS, and also that kitniyot has no legal basis is false. I redid the wording anyway. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, what are you talking about? "little legal basis" (at least in my version, maybe haven't noticed what Pi did with it) refers to donning a skullcap at all times -- cf. Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 4:2 -- and to separate sinks -- cf. Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, 1:82. They're given as an example for prevalent, well-known customs which have very little or no hard halakhic basis. The entire purpose of the section is to illustrate what Minhag is, not to supply trivia or to be cut into zero-relevance sub-sections. The very mention of kitniyot is more than sufficient, having a sub-section for it is ludicrous. AddMore-III (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I got rid of those words. The claim was that Kitniyot is a custom based on no legal basis, but obviously that's not true. Kitniyot while a custom does have a solid foundation in legal discussion, but this is irrelevant for now since I don't think we need to discuss it on the page here. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't know if that what Pi implied, it's certainly not in my version. Also, please note that I supplied a high-quality source about the very nature of Minhag and decisors' attitudes to it, in general (ref no. 20). I'm not about to supply different citations for individual customs, and it were required, we'd use either academic or rabbinic literature. The NYT articles, naturally, are not a learned discussion of an observance's halakihc status, but rather trivial, low-grade reports about Jewish holidays etc. AddMore-III (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sinks

Perhaps for Minhag we can put in the Orthodox Union's insight regarding standing for Choson and Kallah (OU/Jewish Action, Summer 5777/2017, p. 2, LETTERS, "HOW A MINHAG EVOLVED") and add the matter of separate sinks to the "Daily life" subsection.

Sinks were blood-traif in the days when at-home koshering was common. Today, housing aimed at the Orthodox market has 2 (or 3!) sinks to avoid changing color-coded "shissels" (or even having them) and permit putting dishes directly into their appropriate sink. The New York Time's 2009 article on this matter includes separate dishwasher machines, stoves and microwaves, plus Sabbath mode for refrigerators, etc. Pi314m (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The "daily life" is indeed sadly lacking, and probably should become a succinct micro - Orah Hayyim (carefully and without sliding to trivia). However, mentioning the sinks is made as a demonstration of a common custom lacking "hard" legal basis. Adding a full analysis of a very marginal custom, a fortiori based on a letter to the editor (p. 2 here), is both out of place and fails notability. AddMore-III (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
For Minhagim, how about two (or three) of:

- dairy on Shavuos

- Hallel in shul on the first/second night(s) of Pesach (even in some non-Chasidic shuls, including M.O. - alledgedly justified as "giving the women more time to prepare")

- Reading of Torah at night on Simchas Torah (mostly 3 Aliyos, but some even 5, since it's Yom Tov)

- Rabbeinu Tam Tfillin

Sinks (and Yarmulke/Kipa/Kippah) really do belong in Daily Life since one is an obvious public identifier and the other has become a true part of modern (lower case M) Orthodox practice, when possible (space and money permitting, BE"H). I agree to, at least for now, withdraw standing/Chasuna, since the above list seems better. Pi314m (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Replace the link to the DAB page Liberal Judaism with the piped link [[Reform Judaism|Liberal Judaism]]. Narky Blert (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Photographs

For any editor concerned: Recently, user:Castncoot has tried to post a picture of the renovated Chachmei Lublin Yeshiva (the photo is from 2011!) in the history section pertaining to Eastern Europe, which covers events roughly between 1870 to 1939. The photo also sported the baseless caption that this institution was the "largest yeshiva in the world", which is unsourced and doubtful. I replaced it with a more relevant item, a picture of Yisrael Meir Kagan, the undoubted leader of Eastern European Orthodoxy at the time. Again, this is a history section: In Civil War articles, we will expect to see, first and foremost, photographs from the 1860's. In response, and after several mutual reverts during which he voiced rather strange claims in his edit summaries, Castncoot not only removed Kagan's photo and replaced it with the yeshiva, but inserted Theodor Herzl's image. Herzl's only relation to the subject matter was as a hostile element. Removing Kagan with weak excuses and putting in Herzl is blatant vandalism. This is not the first time in which the other party mangled the article's structure. The concerned editor already tried to amass irrelevant and tedious trivia, in the form of a shopping list of communities in New Jersey, which he shoved in the middle of the demographics section. AddMore-III (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin here, but I will try. First of all, here's an epiphany for you: this is Wikipedia, a public global encyclopedia, and not your own private treasured essay or portal to push your POV. Wikipedia's resting premise is WP:NOTABILITY, and not someone's political agenda. Wikipedia articles are also expected to contain images of a high quality to uphold its encyclopedic standard, as opposed to pictures with grainy resolution. Also, this is a comprehensive article about all facets of Orthodox Judaism, not limited to human faces and certainly not limited to your favorite human faces. Hope this explanation helps you to understand. Oh, and by the way, please reference and learn what WP:Vandalism is. Castncoot (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It is the utmost priority of any editor to protect the readership from raging dilettantism in the articles. The editor above demonstrated his merits, not for the first time, by making this incoherent mess. That's not even a readable text. I won't be harangued by people who have no concept of the subject matter. AddMore-III (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Mine was a clerical error (trying to fix your mess), now fixed. Meanwhile, you have far more fundamental problems- with behavior, with understanding WP:Verifiability and WP:Ownership of content, and with even knowing the basic constructs of Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
After I restored to an earlier version I could not believe that there was so much drama over such minor differences. Quit attacking each other and just discuss the changes you wish to make.Editor2020 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I accept the restoration to the status quo you made; I did undo two of your new re-orderings of the text. Any photographs you will suggest/add, I will accept. I must emphasize that the history section concerns history, not current affairs (and ergo, any photograph must be historical): The relevant history of OJ in Eastern Europe, for that matter, ends in the 1930's; in the US, it ends in the 1950's/1960's. I still have two sub-sections to add, which end in the present. AddMore-III (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That is fine. Close enough not to edit war about. Editor2020 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor2020, edit warring is inevitable when extreme dilettantism is at work. The other user still fails to grasp that the history section is concerned with history, not with adding long captions to photographs or with shoving contemporary details. I belong to the upper-class editors who write high-quality prose based on top-notch sources, not just add quotes from "New Jersey Online" to barely-notable articles. I expect your input in this Talkpage, for I certainly don't intend to waste my time on the other party, who has contributed only zero-quality trivia (a shopping list of NJ towns and a photo) thus far. The quality of the article, though there is still much room for improvement, needs to be protected lest it deteriorate. AddMore-III (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have recently been accused of "anti-American Orthodox POV" in one of the other party's edit summaries. That is truly laughable. So far, Castncoot demonstrated again and again that he has no grasp of the subject matter. He added a paragraph that was supposedly about US Orthodox history, but did not concern that issue at the least; after much hounding of the article, including a troll-like addition of Herzl, he put in a photo of Hasidim in Sabbath morning attire and presented it as "typical" of Haredim in general. If had any idea about American Orthodoxy, he would have added something which distinctive of it, not conservative ultra-Orthodox who look and sound the same as those in Israel or Europe. I'll have to do it myself; I'm now working on a photo collage of Orthodox sub-groups. AddMore-III (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy to hear that you have no such POV, although you have a funny way of demonstrating that. You could simply have rewritten the caption of the Brooklyn Orthodox image along with captions of the images that other editors had inserted, rather than deleting these constructive images wholesale (and then inserting a WP:GALLERY, which really made no sense to me). And actually, you are absolutely incorrect (and apparently completely unaware of) the level of Ultra-Orthodoxy that you sometimes find in parts of New York and New Jersey - as much so as in Israel or Eastern Europe. Furthermore, Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable sources, not necessarily your preferred sources. The quantity, quality, and appropriateness of the current image set is really quite fair and adequately balanced. I don't feel that we necessarily need more, less, or other images, and we certainly don't need a gallery of images. Castncoot (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The gallery has been supported by two editors, myself and user:Horse Eye Jack who reverted to it. Inserting white, male ultra-Orthodox is contrary to the other party's claims of upholding diversity. There are zero differences between Hasidim/Litvaks in Israel/Europe/US (who often move between the locations, speak and dress the same, and are members of the same families!), the differences within Orthodoxy are more reflected in the gallery. However, I'll make it more orderly. User:El_C, I barely had time for wikipedia since 15/10, and the time before I wasted on this, but I must request that you pay notice. The other party has systematically hounded the article with demands concerning photos - though Editor2020, SirJoseph and Horse Eye Jack removed its additions, including a highly inflammatory photo of Theodor Herzl - making constant personal attacks against my valid explanations and ordering me, the almost sole author of this article, to "cease editing". He has also deleted both mine and Horse Eye Jack's posts from his talkpage. I find this behaviour unacceptable, and the lack of response from the administrators somewhat unsettling. AddMore-III (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
If you don't ping me, I don't see it. Castncoot, if you continue to engage in personal attacks, and in general, discussing editors, their motives, etc., you will be sanctioned. Otherwise, on the content front, I recommend you all review your dispute resolution requests and pick a request that best suits your dispute — one that would, hopefully, can bring further outside input that will help determine the consensus. Until then, I suggest you all observe WP:ONUS and defer to the status quo ante version. El_C 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
User:El_C, thank you for your response. As far as I see it, the version I reverted to now was supported, at least implicitly, by two editors (myself and Horse Eye) and contested by the other party, while the one you reverted to a week ago was promoted by the other party and contested by myself. That is, 2:1 vs. 1:1. I think the current one may therefore be regarded as the preferable, though I'm open to any decision you make concerning photos. I uploaded the gallery solely because the other party demanded "diversity"; this gallery is actually diverse. I now hope to be able to continue my work on the article's text, at last. AddMore-III (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@AddMore-III: Polling is not a substitute for discussion and cannot be used to represent or as shortcut toward the determination of consensus. Again, my advise is to stick to the status quo ante version while this matter remains unresolved, whichever that version that happens to be — sorry, I'm not really sure which one it is. El_C 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, if so, I'll first remove the new gallery, which, as I stress again, was posted because the other party complained about lack of diversity. If you'll look into the article's history, you'll notice that pictures "Beit yaaaak.JPG" "and הפגנת החרדים נגד גיוס בני ישיבות.jpg" were at the demographics section, uncontested, until the other party attempted to replace them (first the former, then the latter) with picture " Jueus ultraortodoxes satmar a brooklyn.jpg" on 7 October. Both these edits (not supported by any other editor) were contested by myself, on the 7th and 15th. AddMore-III (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
No, AddMore-III, you're not correct. This is the actual status quo ante, after a long run of edits by Editor2020, before you deleted 49 thousand bytes. And the Lakewood yeshiva image has been there a long time. Castncoot (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, AddMore-III says above to Editor2020: "I accept the restoration to the status quo" — presumably, talking about the same thing (?). El_C 19:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, El_C, that is correct. I've restored it to the last version representing that long string of edits by Editor2020. Castncoot (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, first, the last edit summary claiming that I "reverted 49 thousand bytes" is a lie. In his string of edits on 30 September-1 October, Editor2020 made many changes. I accepted almost all, including lower case for "minhag" (which the other party just reverted), but he also reversed the order of the article: He put history first, and doctrines at the bottom. I moved these 49k back to place, as they always were. Now, the status quo ante which Editor2020 reverted to is this one. Afterwards, the other party repeatedly inserted photos without support from other editors. If anything, both Sir Joseph and Horse Eye Jack removed the photos he sought to insert/reverted him. If you want to revert to SQ of Editor2020, that's the one. I don't know why it should be regarded as SQ, with the involvement of others since and Castncoot's attempts to add utterly different pictures (first a photo in the "United Stats" history section, removed by Sir Joseph; since then, he deleted two photos present at "demographics" one after the other and tried to replace them, as already detailed above). Finally, and most importantly, this entire dispute concerns only photos. I continued to expand the article's text, trying to complete the history section at last, a task I'm unable to pursue because the prose is repeatedly deleted or mangled. Just in the recent revert, apart from again reversing the order of doctrine and history, the other party deleted 8.5 lines of text ("Between the ultra-Orthodox and Conservatives, Modern Orthodoxy in America also coalesced..." and so forth). He already jumbled the text in what he deemed, above, "a clerical error", while re-inserting one of his photos. The constant reverts also caused the disappearance of this text, as I just found out. I'm the only one actually writing the article, I've attempted to indulge the other party's demand for "diversity in photos", with a great expense of time: It took me hours to gather the photos in that truly inclusive gallery. I can't work like this. AddMore-III (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The facts speak for themselves. Start at the status quo ante and start compromising, please. Castncoot (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
My advise to both of you would be to stop communicating through edit summaries. If you have a proposed addition or removal of text or images, it would make sense to submit such proposals here, on the article talk page, first. See what others have to say, and then and only then, go on to apply those changes. Although I usually encourage bold edits, in this case, perhaps the time to be bold has past and instead cautious, gradual progress should be the order of the day. El_C 16:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Due to IRL concerns, I've been off en.wiki for almost a week, and I apologize for answering so late. perhaps I'm not sufficiently couched in the wiki-lawyering jargon, but I find no remedy in your response. The facts are indeed clear: Castncoot has been hounding this article for months now, attempting to force his photos in though several other editors deleted them. I stress this because there is no content dispute, and the article's text has not been subject to any debate in this round. However, just in his recent edit, the other party again deleted an entire paragraph in "Eastern Europe", and duplicated another section in the intro. For several days, about 1,200 daily viewers had to see an intro with two identical paragraphs ("OJ therefore advocates"). He did not even revert to the photos of Editor2020's chosen SQA (not that I indicated acceptance of it, other editors involved themselves since), but to a version he chose. This is not the first time he mauled the article's prose. We have a strange stand-off in which one party tries to write the article, while the other randomly deletes sections in reverts and sticks altering photos in it, also denying me the possibility of including actually representative pictures. I'm good not at wiki-lawyering, I thought an editor is supposed to just find academic-level sources and actually write prose. I'll ask for @Horse Eye Jack:'s comment, and if I may, also for his support for a modified version of the gallery I removed. AddMore-III (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@AddMore-III: no problem, I was in no rush. Well, and here I thought that agreeing on what constitutes the status quo ante version would be a simple enough proposition. I guess not. At any case, page protected, this time for 2 weeks. Perhaps you can make use of one of the following Dispute resolution requests in the meantime...? El_C 21:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I thank you, at the very least this safeguards the full text of the article. The SQ, as I see it, can only be the version E2020 reverted to about a month ago (photo-wise, not text-wise, because the text, again, was not concerned) - even though other editors involved themselves since. The version Castncoot reverted to is different. In the meantime, no one supported his ever-changing pictorial additions. Thank you again, I apologize for all this. AddMore-III (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect again, AddMore-III. Editor2020 defines the status quo ante with their edits de facto. So we now have an updated status quo ante, and it is this. Also, what gave you the right to brazenly defy El_C's request not to make any bold changes for now? At least I was respecting that request and was shocked that you made the 1700+ byte bold edit that you made after their specific instruction to make only gradual changes. Castncoot (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, I apologize for recalling you to this madhouse. in his recent edit, immediately after the protected status was lifted, the other party yet again reverted to a version which he claimed to be "SQA" yet is not. More importantly, he slashed the text, removing an entire section ("Both large Eastern European ...postwar ultra-Orthodox world"). This is, what, the fifth time he deleted an excellently referenced text against which he did not even claim to quarrel? I expect sanctions against such blatant violations of the article, not merely protecting the page. I will not bother posting a warning template to the user's talkpage, as he already deleted both mine and HorseEyeJack's warnings. AddMore-III (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I am unable to tell what's what at this time, so I am not inclined to apply sanctions toward anyone. I considered just blocking both of you, but then thought better of it. I'd rather give you two a chance to make comments outside your own talk pages so that you can resolve this dispute, somehow. But, if you feel there is actual misconduct, one which requires sanctions, please feel free to request these at AN/I. I'm not sure I'm that inclined to study this further without the participants doing some of the legwork, in terms of presenting a proper report (diffs and all) that lays out everything in a manner that is more easily intelligible. El_C 06:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, do we really need to reach consensus on what counts as the status quo ante so that the real discussion can actually commence? Sadly, it seems like yes, perhaps. El_C 07:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@El C:, That's the least of our problems. This is the status quo ante, decided by a third editor (who was incidentally summoned by the other party). Very clearly expressed in the edit summary. I can re-add any text that will be deleted in the reversion process. Apart from that, I'll also launch a detailed ANI. The dispute is convoluted because the other party randomly hounds the article, attempting to add photos, which are rejected not just by me but by all other editors. No one supported Castncoot in the talkpage. Editor2020 removed (and chose to re-add the image I preferred) the photos of Theodor Herzl and that Lublin yeshiva Castncoot tried to insert; later on, SirJoseph removed the Lakewood yeshiva photo, and added the one of Leeser now in place; afterwards, HoreseEyeJack reverted its "typical Haredim" photo. AddMore-III (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@El_C, This is truly the status quo ante and where the article should be frozen, as this was Editor 2020's last edit on 29 October. You then instructed us just a few paragraphs above this point on this Talk page to refrain from bold moves. AddMore-III directly and brazenly violated your instruction when they subsequently made this bold edit. Then you froze the article for till 13 November. After the article was reopened to edit, I simply reverted it back to this point, again making Editor2020's edit the last edit, and before AddMore's outright breach of your instruction. I respectfully request that the article be reverted back to making Editor2020's most recent edit the last standing edit while all of this gets sorted out. I believe we had implicitly agreed that Editor2020's edits (for the moment) determined the sqa. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to edit the protected page to bring it back to the status quo ante, because it in itself is disputed. And I'm not sure what it is. El_C 19:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
AddMore asked for Editor2020 to be the casting vote. That's why I'm OK with any of Editor2020's final edits in any given string of their recent edits, El_C. Castncoot (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Correction: I didn't "ask" for him to be the casting vote, he was the only other editor to intervene at the time. Since then, SirJoseph and HorseEyeJack also edited the article. All these other three editors repeatedly rejected Castncoot's photo choices, as is clearly demonstrated in the edit summaries I cited. Where are the edit summaries of other editors reverting/editing in favour of Castncoot? I don't see any need to revert to SQA, just pointed out that the last SQA is not the version he claimed. I don't care what Castncoot accepts or not, only what Editor2020 defined as the SQA; that's extremely easy to see from the edit summary. Afterwards, E2020 did a range of other, new edits which cannot naturally cannot be deemed as SQA. BTW, reversion to an older version is completely uncalled for, because Castncoot does not even purport to have a dispute about the text. All he does is to shove different images, one or two each time, while randomly mauling the prose. I don't intend to complete the article (of which I'm almost the sole author) until the text will be safe from his slashes, which destroy entire section. What this talkpage needs is a few more editors who will weigh in on the question which photos it should include; I'm positive that I'll convince them that the gallery I posted a month or so ago is optimal. AddMore-III (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, I must protest the tolerance presented here to the blatantly disruptive editing of Castncoot, who contributed nothing of quality to this article, and damaged it on four or five occasions. AddMore-III (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree diametrically. In fact, I feel the exact same way and perhaps more so about the apparent tolerance here for your disruptive behavior and what you seem to have been able to get away with, 1) not the least of which is twisting the facts to fit your narrative. But also, 2) you insist on having your own way here as if you're the OWNER of the article and essentially have been in the process of taking it over at the exclusion of any editor who you believe stands in your way. 3) You won't allow pertinent images or facts about Orthodox Jewry in the United States which others feel pertinent to be expressed. 4) You actually rudely reverted Horse Eye Jack's edit in a spate of removals and added an absolutely egregious gallery which violates major Wikipedia image rules. 5) You've conveniently changed your narrative about the significance of Editor2020's edits. 6) Even this admin, El_C was apparently fine with the image of the Lakewood yeshiva as far back as May 2019. 7) But worst of all, when the admin El_C instructed us not to make any bold edits, you blatantly and brazenly did anyway, against all appropriate editing norms and behavior, when I made sure to actually respect the rules. Please look in the mirror at the true disruptor here. Castncoot (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll restate briefly. Editor2020 reverted to the SQA version. If a majority here would wish to revert to SQA, that's the one. I don't see any reason to do so, but that's the one. Afterwards, E2020 conducted a series of many edits. I accepted the vast majority, except his decision to change the order of sections - history first, all the rest at the bottom, contrary to what was before and to other articles like Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. Actually, Castncoot doesn't even notice he reverts to my editions before E2020 (for example, E2020 spelled "Minhag" with lower case "minhag"; look what C's reverts do to it). E2020 did not protest that reversion at all, and did not try to restore that order in his edits afterwards. Since then, two other editors at least involved themselves in the article. There's no reason to disregard them. As I said, because Castncoot's only agenda was to throw photos around at random, the text is irrelevant and reversion would merely complicate things. So, instead of reverting, let's cut to the chase and summon some editors who'll decide what photos we should have. I tried to ping one, but he didn't show. Castncoot's photos were continually removed by all other parties in the past, I don't see a reason to indulge him only because he keeps hounding the article. Let the community have its say, maybe by a Rfc. I believe they'll approve my gallery. AddMore-III (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll state briefly that you've now entangled yourself in a blatant factual falsehood: neither admin El_C nor editor Editor2020 objected to the Lakewood yeshiva image; Horse Eye Jack had made a revert that didn't state a specific objection to this image. Whose eyes do you think you're trying to pull the wool over? Castncoot (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent Quotation Marks and Capitalization

At different points Open Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox are either put in quotes or not put in quotes, seemingly at random. Probably because the article was built over time by different users. I think there should be one standard. I propose no quotes.

Same issue for capitalizing or not capitalizing Ultra-Orthodox. I propose capitalizing consistently. Bilto74811 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Uniformly unquoted and uncapitalized. Josprien (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent content changes

I have restored the IP's good edits, particularly those that better summarise the content of the article in the lede. There's a lot to be done with this article and it's pretty poor- the sourcing overall is abominable. It would be about 1/3 of the length if all the material without a citations was cut.Pipsally (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Modern Orthodoxy under attack

Editors of this article may be interested in the comments here: RK (talk)

Talk:Modern_Orthodox_Judaism#Modern_Orthodoxy_under_attack Modern Orthodoxy Under Attack

Use of the word moniker

I do not think that this is appropriate word in a serious article. To me it has a mocking tone.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed "2 million, largest Jewish religious group" poorly-sourced claim in lede; apparently contradicted by later source

There was a claim in the lede that "[Orthodox Judaism] is the largest Jewish religious group, estimated to have over 2 million practicing adherents, and at least an equal number of nominal members." The source supporting this claim is quite old (1990), and appears to be quite idiosyncratic and speculative in how it arrives at that number. The later Pew survey (2015) depicts Orthodox Judaism as smaller than Non-Orthodox. There is perhaps some confusion here in whether "Orthodox" is its own movement, and "Non-Orthodox" is properly a "religious group," but nevertheless the claim does not appear to be accurate, or if it is, it does not appear to be well-supported. For these reasons, I've removed it. Suitecake (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not qualified to make that judgement. The Conservative Movement in Judaism: Dilemmas and Opportunities is from 2012, it was written by leading experts, and published by a respectable academic press. If you cannot provide a contradictory statement, by a source matching in quality, the 4 million estimate will stay. AddMore-III (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The original article was published in 1991 (see https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1171988/how-strong-is-orthodox-judaism-really-the-demographics-of-jewish-religious-identification/1725116/), and without having the physical copy of the book in front of me, appears to have been simply republished in 2012 (without changes?). The Pew survey itself appears to be contradictory, and is much more recent. Note: the estimate in question was 2 million, not 4 million.
Taking another stab at reverting it, as I don't think your explanation makes much sense, and the claim appears to be clearly contradicted by a more recent source (which is, again, already present in the article). Suitecake (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
That's not really how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm open to being wrong, and being better educated about how wiki works. But it seems strange to me that, when navigating two sources that appear to contradict one another, one would simply be chosen and reported in the lede, then apparently contradicted later in the Demographics section (which is clearer about the strength of the claim and framing the findings with the Pew surveys, though the Demographics section also seems to have its own problems in attributing the findings for Orthodox affiliation in the US to the worldwide Jewish population).
I don't plan to do any further edits after this last one. Just navigating what looks to me like a simple contradiction in the sources, in good faith. Suitecake (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Alright. The PEW survey covers Israel alone, and Israelis are divided along levels of practice. The masorti/hiloni labels over there are sociological categories, not religious groups like Reform. When asked about their "denomination", Israelis respond very differently: 50% answered "Orthodox". But more importantly, Mintz/Elazar state explicitly that Orthodoxy is larger than both Reform and Conservative combined, and that most "traditional" Israelis (grouped as non-Orthodox in PEW) are nonobservant Orthodox. Besides, roughly 20% observant Orthodox in Israel in 2015, with a Jewish population of 6.5M, is about 1.2M. Add 0.6M in the US alone, and a large number around the world, and you get 2M observant Orthodox easily. AddMore-III (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thank you Suitecake (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations

Hey, there is a lot of content with "citation needed" that are very strong claims to make without one. Should they be kept in? Can give examples if others can't see what I mean 2603:80A0:1640:1B6:D99C:CE4D:43B6:8108 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Some dimwit drive-by templated the "Modernity crisis" section with cn's, failing to understand that when there's a source in the end, it covers everything. AddMore-III (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I see that now. The citations should be expanded, though, as using only one source shows some possible quality issues. While the book is widely seen as reliable, and that information should not be removed, ideally there are other sources to back up its claims. Added the "one source" notice to alert others to the need. Fluxjupyter (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
If I write a lot of prose based on one source, and that source just happens to be written by the leading historian on the topic, it's more than sufficient. If you want to write a better intro paragraph, you may do so based on whichever sources you prefer, as long as they are of the same quality. AddMore-III (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The source validity is not the problem, and I am not claiming that the paragraph is bad. I am saying that an entire history section of a major world religion should not be the work of one man, no matter how "leading" he is in the subject. If this information is as well accepted as you say, then there should be other historians who have verified his work.
I cannot find other sources beyond the cited one, and thus the tag is there to encourage others to find more sources. The onus of a correction is not on the one who found the problem. Fluxjupyter (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Kapota

I do not see even a single mention of the Kapota. For that matter, how is there not an article on the kapota? That seems like a perfectly neutral, simple, encyclopedic entry to write. Maybe I will write one if in fact I am correct, since I cannot find one... TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 19:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Role of women in orthodox" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Role of women in orthodox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Role of women in orthodox until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthodox_Judaism/Archive_2&oldid=1183389734"